The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Financial.Velociraptor on April 28, 2020, 12:33:36 PM
-
Not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, Texas was reliably a Blue state. Reagan changed a lot for the state. But the influence is waning. Every year, Texas receives more immigration from Blue states (especially California). Every year, the state gets younger, less white, and more urban. Income inequality is also expanding here faster than in a lot of places. I think the demographics make it a sure bet Texas will flip back to reliably Blue in my lifetime.
Anyone else seeing the same thing? Care to weigh in with your target year?
-
I see a lot of factors, including a variety of Latinx voters with big influence (could go either way), party choices about policy and presention, questions about whether the current identity-polarization war mode of politics will persist, and so on.
No idea when someday is, though. 2024 or 2044? Can't tell!
-
Not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, Texas was reliably a Blue state. Reagan changed a lot for the state. But the influence is waning. Every year, Texas receives more immigration from Blue states (especially California). Every year, the state gets younger, less white, and more urban. Income inequality is also expanding here faster than in a lot of places. I think the demographics make it a sure bet Texas will flip back to reliably Blue in my lifetime.
Anyone else seeing the same thing? Care to weigh in with your target year?
Before I read your poll choices my off-the-cuff answer was 2030 so I'll stick with it.
-
Keeping in mind that you have the presidential vote, governor, US house, US senate, state house, and state senate - that's a lot. Whenever it is, it'll be purple well before it is blue.
-
Long enough for the older voters to pass. The Texas Republican party isn't growing its younger voter base or its base with women. (The GOP state chair said so himself.) ON the other hand, the stagnation of the economy and the energy sector in particular will slow down in-migration.
I would have said that 2020 would continue the encroachment of blue--maybe a couple of House seats, some state legislature seats, etc but no massive change.
The big issue is what Coronavirus will do. The state is opening really early and the governor isn't letting the major cities tweak plans based on their circumstances. If this blows up in his face, a lot of people may choose to punish somebody at the ballot box (not him, he's not up for election and probably pretty damn happy about it). The other issue is that Texas has been stubborn about vote-by-mail. If there's a fall wave, it's Republican voters who are more likely to have to stay away from the polls (again, older).
-
I don't think it will happen any time soon. (disclosure: the last Texas election in which I voted was 2002)
The Latinx that seem to be the core argument for Democrats' ascendancy: many of them are small business owners, pro-gun, and people of faith; many others are participating in the energy economy. Whatever happens with Trump, it's going to be very hard to get them to switch parties.
-
I think it turns purple in 8-10 years and blue in about 2x that amount of time. So 2036-2040.
-
Didn't Cruz barely squeak by? Cruz isn't well liked by anyone, true, but it's a sign.
We'll know more this fall with Cornyn's race but we do know that Republicans are losing urban and suburban voters.
-
Isn't COrnyn's seat rated as "safe R"?
-
Isn't COrnyn's seat rated as "safe R"?
It is rated as "likely R" by most pundits:
https://www.niskanencenter.org/negative-partisanship-and-the-2020-congressional-elections/
I would still be surprised if it flipped though. ^ The above article is an interesting, but unconventional analysis that suggests some pathways to flip the Senate.
-
I think things flip flop more than people expect. Nixon carried 49 states in 1972 and then was removed from office later on. Reagan was a California republican. Blue collar voters in the Great Lakes used to be reliable Democrats.
So maybe Texas becomes solidly blue in 10 years, and then somewhere else we don't expect (Illinois?) becomes solidly red. Maybe the Democrats sweep 49 states for a decade or so and then there's a huge corruption scandal and the Republicans or some new party comes roaring back.
I will assume Texas will flip at some point because that's how it's trending right now and I think it's foolish to assume the status quo will just remain constantly. But when and how and for how long I don't know, and what that will mean in the long run, ditto.
I always roll my eyes now when one party wins a 51% election and then goes banging on about having some permanent mandate and how things have now forever changed. They drink their own kool aid and then get thrown out in the next election and some new politician does the same thing.
-
I don't think it will happen any time soon. (disclosure: the last Texas election in which I voted was 2002)
The Latinx that seem to be the core argument for Democrats' ascendancy: many of them are small business owners, pro-gun, and people of faith; many others are participating in the energy economy. Whatever happens with Trump, it's going to be very hard to get them to switch parties.
This. The Latinx argument misses a lot. For starters they aren’ta monolithic voting bloc, but have been pushed into one only in the last cycle by some truly hostile actions and rhetoric
Many may vote Dem now but aren’t comfortable within that party either. On average they are not conservative, more religious and more skeptical of large governmental programs than the center of the Democratic Party. Ones that immigrated here legally are also (in general) supportive of measures to prevent illegal immigration and deport those who did not come here following all the rules.
I’ll also echo what LWYRCP said; basically no state had remained one single color through five presidents. Seems foolish to assume any particular one will for another five. It’s just s as conceivable to me that Texas could vote blue by 2028 as California voting Red. Maybe not likely (>50%) but certainly not inconceivable.
-
I'll believe it when it happens.
-
A lot of polls are showing Biden and Trump in a dead heat in TX right now. I think Trump's support there is probably +3-4%, but even if that's true, it's a pretty big drop in 3 years. I wonder if that's indicative of more leftward leaning since 2016 or just a referendum on Trump himself.
-
If we look too far in the future, we have to consider that the political parties themselves could change. They seem to straddle each side of whatever the middle is at the time. The positions Democrats held in the 1990's on things like gay marriage, etc. would make them Republicans today (see criticism of Biden for being a 1990s Democrat). So, what if the Republican party changes in a way that captures the middle of Texas' future demographics? Or what if the Democrats change in a way that does so in a shorter time frame?
Arguably, had the Democrats frozen their politics in the 80's or 90's, they would be palatable to a majority of Texans today. Not saying they should have, but pointing out that the national scene involves giving up certain states to seize others.
-
If we look too far in the future, we have to consider that the political parties themselves could change. They seem to straddle each side of whatever the middle is at the time. The positions Democrats held in the 1990's on things like gay marriage, etc. would make them Republicans today (see criticism of Biden for being a 1990s Democrat). So, what if the Republican party changes in a way that captures the middle of Texas' future demographics? Or what if the Democrats change in a way that does so in a shorter time frame?
Arguably, had the Democrats frozen their politics in the 80's or 90's, they would be palatable to a majority of Texans today. Not saying they should have, but pointing out that the national scene involves giving up certain states to seize others.
Wow! Serious thoughts. Multiple things I hadn't thought of before.
-
If we look too far in the future, we have to consider that the political parties themselves could change. They seem to straddle each side of whatever the middle is at the time. The positions Democrats held in the 1990's on things like gay marriage, etc. would make them Republicans today (see criticism of Biden for being a 1990s Democrat). So, what if the Republican party changes in a way that captures the middle of Texas' future demographics? Or what if the Democrats change in a way that does so in a shorter time frame?
Arguably, had the Democrats frozen their politics in the 80's or 90's, they would be palatable to a majority of Texans today. Not saying they should have, but pointing out that the national scene involves giving up certain states to seize others.
Last state-wide office won by a Democrat in Texas was in the early 1990's.
-
Last state-wide office won by a Democrat in Texas was in the early 1990's.
Ah... the 90s. Remember them? Flannel and grunge and the feeling that 'the next millenium' was just around the corner? Y2k? Our problem and social angst seemed to quaint now, in comparison.
-
I think a lot depends on 2020 results, and redistricting. Frankly I would prefer for each state to have non parisan groups draw districting maps. I live in NC which by the number of people who vote republican and democrat voters, would be considered a purple state. But you would never know based on number of red/blue reps. What I'm saying it doesn't matter how many blue voters there are, if they are essentially disenfranchized. Not just gerrymandering, but eliminating places to vote, voter id laws, and making it difficult to register to vote or to vote. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/485906-long-voting-lines-in-texas-renew-accusations-of%3famp httpss://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statesman.com/news/20190627/gerrymander-ruling-shifts-focus-to-texas-2020-elections%3ftemplate=ampart personally, I think election day should be a national holiday. Much more meaningful than alot of these other holidays.
-
I think a lot depends on 2020 results, and redistricting. Frankly I would prefer for each state to have non parisan groups draw districting maps. I live in NC which by the number of people who vote republican and democrat voters, would be considered a purple state. But you would never know based on number of red/blue reps. What I'm saying it doesn't matter how many blue voters there are, if they are essentially disenfranchized. Not just gerrymandering, but eliminating places to vote, voter id laws, and making it difficult to register to vote or to vote. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/485906-long-voting-lines-in-texas-renew-accusations-of%3famp httpss://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statesman.com/news/20190627/gerrymander-ruling-shifts-focus-to-texas-2020-elections%3ftemplate=ampart personally, I think election day should be a national holiday. Much more meaningful than alot of these other holidays.
This is a good point but not relevant to the poll which is intended to cover state wide offices or POTUS voting. Most recent polling as noted by 270 to win shows that the Presidential election is within a point of the margin of error of being a toss-up.
-
Didn't Cruz barely squeak by? Cruz isn't well liked by anyone, true, but it's a sign.
We'll know more this fall with Cornyn's race but we do know that Republicans are losing urban and suburban voters.
I think the level at which Ted Cruz is disliked combined with the fact that Beto O'Rourke was, at the time, an unusually compelling candidate made that race an outlier. John Cornyn is much better at avoiding headlines that raise people's hackles and his opponent is handicapped by the fact that the Democratic nomination is still in a (late, because COVID) run-off. I think the margin will be narrower than it would have been in the past, but I would be shocked if the Democrats grab that seat. Now, when Ted is up again in four years...that could be an interesting race.
-
A couple thoughts on the change of political parties...
After the Civil War the southern states were nearly 100% Democratic. From the governor down to the dog catcher, you almost couldn't get elected as a Republican. The familiar liberal/conservative lines still existed, but it was essentially one party rule. On a national level, this meant that many southern Democratic senators and congressmen could be, and often were just as conservative than typical Republicans.
This started to change in the 1970s with Nixon's "Southern Strategy" which courted conservative southern Democrats, and started to take off in the 1980s with Reagan. Two things really sealed the deal, one was the Democrats losing the House majority in 1994 at which point many remaining southern Democrats decided to switch parties, and the second was courting evangelical voters, who vote reliably anti-abortion. Abortion is a classic wedge issue where people who feel strongly about that issue will vote regardless of other factors. This lead to the near death of the NE liberal Republican. George H.W. Bush for example was pro-choice, and Mitt Romney ran for senate as a pro-choice candidate.
Enter Donald Trump. Trump keeps the abortion issue, along low taxes, and a few other things, but otherwise flips the script. Trump is in favor of tariffs and a generally isolationist viewpoint, which appeals enough to white working class voters who had formerly mostly been Democrats, and wins the election.
The Post-Trump Republican party faces some big questions. The economically liberal (in the classic sense) wing of the Republican Party isn't compatible with the Trump wing. The aggressive foreign policy wing isn't either. I don't know how this plays out, but a different Republican Party will emerge from the post-Trump era. And a different Democratic party will too.
-
@Telecaster , loved that. Can I copy/paste into my facebook feed?
-
I think a lot depends on 2020 results, and redistricting. Frankly I would prefer for each state to have non parisan groups draw districting maps. I live in NC which by the number of people who vote republican and democrat voters, would be considered a purple state. But you would never know based on number of red/blue reps. What I'm saying it doesn't matter how many blue voters there are, if they are essentially disenfranchized. Not just gerrymandering, but eliminating places to vote, voter id laws, and making it difficult to register to vote or to vote. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/485906-long-voting-lines-in-texas-renew-accusations-of%3famp httpss://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statesman.com/news/20190627/gerrymander-ruling-shifts-focus-to-texas-2020-elections%3ftemplate=ampart personally, I think election day should be a national holiday. Much more meaningful than alot of these other holidays.
As an Australian, I still can't believe that a nation so steeped in rhetoric about being the "greatest democracy on earth" doesn't have independent districting and independent redistribution of electoral divisions. This seems so fundamental to the idea of being a democracy to me...
-
I think a lot depends on 2020 results, and redistricting. Frankly I would prefer for each state to have non parisan groups draw districting maps. I live in NC which by the number of people who vote republican and democrat voters, would be considered a purple state. But you would never know based on number of red/blue reps. What I'm saying it doesn't matter how many blue voters there are, if they are essentially disenfranchized. Not just gerrymandering, but eliminating places to vote, voter id laws, and making it difficult to register to vote or to vote. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/485906-long-voting-lines-in-texas-renew-accusations-of%3famp httpss://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statesman.com/news/20190627/gerrymander-ruling-shifts-focus-to-texas-2020-elections%3ftemplate=ampart personally, I think election day should be a national holiday. Much more meaningful than alot of these other holidays.
As an Australian, I still can't believe that a nation so steeped in rhetoric about being the "greatest democracy on earth" doesn't have independent districting and independent redistribution of electoral divisions. This seems so fundamental to the idea of being a democracy to me...
It helps to know the history behind it. The United States wasn’t founded on the idea that it was a single sovereign country, but a collection of independent states. That came later. People even spoke about the US as plural for the first 80-some years (“the United States are...” instead of “the United States is ....”). Heck, for the first 16 years each state had its own currency.
So: Each state has control over its own districting (not at the federal level), and the same number of representatives in the Senate but loosely based on population for the House. Some states do a better/more independent job than others. Most state constitutions allowed the elected (state) government to draw the districts, but this was established way before anyone realized one could draw maps to allow one group to unfairly hold onto power (i.e. gerrymandering). And the unequal representation at the federal level has grown worse as the population has grown and the urban/rural divide has gotten so much large. Not sure anyone in the 18th century could envision a country with 50 states and 330 million people back then. When the constitution was drafted 96% of the US population were farmers.
FWIW I agree that the gerrymandering of districts and unequal representation is one of the biggest threats to the ‘will of the people’ actually mattering as it should. Just trying to give some context for how it came to be. Both a strength and weakness of the constitution (depending on the circumstance) is how difficult it is to change, and how all laws and precedent are superseded by the constitution.
-
I think a lot depends on 2020 results, and redistricting. Frankly I would prefer for each state to have non parisan groups draw districting maps. I live in NC which by the number of people who vote republican and democrat voters, would be considered a purple state. But you would never know based on number of red/blue reps. What I'm saying it doesn't matter how many blue voters there are, if they are essentially disenfranchized. Not just gerrymandering, but eliminating places to vote, voter id laws, and making it difficult to register to vote or to vote. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/485906-long-voting-lines-in-texas-renew-accusations-of%3famp httpss://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statesman.com/news/20190627/gerrymander-ruling-shifts-focus-to-texas-2020-elections%3ftemplate=ampart personally, I think election day should be a national holiday. Much more meaningful than alot of these other holidays.
As an Australian, I still can't believe that a nation so steeped in rhetoric about being the "greatest democracy on earth" doesn't have independent districting and independent redistribution of electoral divisions. This seems so fundamental to the idea of being a democracy to me...
It helps to know the history behind it. The United States wasn’t founded on the idea that it was a single sovereign country, but a collection of independent states. That came later. People even spoke about the US as plural for the first 80-some years (“the United States are...” instead of “the United States is ....”). Heck, for the first 16 years each state had its own currency.
So: Each state has control over its own districting (not at the federal level), and the same number of representatives in the Senate but loosely based on population for the House. Some states do a better/more independent job than others. Most state constitutions allowed the elected (state) government to draw the districts, but this was established way before anyone realized one could draw maps to allow one group to unfairly hold onto power (i.e. gerrymandering). And the unequal representation at the federal level has grown worse as the population has grown and the urban/rural divide has gotten so much large. Not sure anyone in the 18th century could envision a country with 50 states and 330 million people back then. When the constitution was drafted 96% of the US population were farmers.
FWIW I agree that the gerrymandering of districts and unequal representation is one of the biggest threats to the ‘will of the people’ actually mattering as it should. Just trying to give some context for how it came to be. Both a strength and weakness of the constitution (depending on the circumstance) is how difficult it is to change, and how all laws and precedent are superseded by the constitution.
I can see how it evolved. It is still inconsistent with probably THE most fundamental tenet of democracy. I can see why the two political parties in the US stand to benefit from retaining the system, but to me it seems like 'the will of the people' is being subverted by 'the will of the party(ies)'.
'The will of the party' is a phrase I tend to associate with an entirely different political system...
-
I think a lot depends on 2020 results, and redistricting. Frankly I would prefer for each state to have non parisan groups draw districting maps. I live in NC which by the number of people who vote republican and democrat voters, would be considered a purple state. But you would never know based on number of red/blue reps. What I'm saying it doesn't matter how many blue voters there are, if they are essentially disenfranchized. Not just gerrymandering, but eliminating places to vote, voter id laws, and making it difficult to register to vote or to vote. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/485906-long-voting-lines-in-texas-renew-accusations-of%3famp httpss://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statesman.com/news/20190627/gerrymander-ruling-shifts-focus-to-texas-2020-elections%3ftemplate=ampart personally, I think election day should be a national holiday. Much more meaningful than alot of these other holidays.
As an Australian, I still can't believe that a nation so steeped in rhetoric about being the "greatest democracy on earth" doesn't have independent districting and independent redistribution of electoral divisions. This seems so fundamental to the idea of being a democracy to me...
It helps to know the history behind it. The United States wasn’t founded on the idea that it was a single sovereign country, but a collection of independent states. That came later. People even spoke about the US as plural for the first 80-some years (“the United States are...” instead of “the United States is ....”). Heck, for the first 16 years each state had its own currency.
So: Each state has control over its own districting (not at the federal level), and the same number of representatives in the Senate but loosely based on population for the House. Some states do a better/more independent job than others. Most state constitutions allowed the elected (state) government to draw the districts, but this was established way before anyone realized one could draw maps to allow one group to unfairly hold onto power (i.e. gerrymandering). And the unequal representation at the federal level has grown worse as the population has grown and the urban/rural divide has gotten so much large. Not sure anyone in the 18th century could envision a country with 50 states and 330 million people back then. When the constitution was drafted 96% of the US population were farmers.
FWIW I agree that the gerrymandering of districts and unequal representation is one of the biggest threats to the ‘will of the people’ actually mattering as it should. Just trying to give some context for how it came to be. Both a strength and weakness of the constitution (depending on the circumstance) is how difficult it is to change, and how all laws and precedent are superseded by the constitution.
I can see how it evolved. It is still inconsistent with probably THE most fundamental tenet of democracy. I can see why the two political parties in the US stand to benefit from retaining the system, but to me it seems like 'the will of the people' is being subverted by 'the will of the party(ies)'.
'The will of the party' is a phrase I tend to associate with an entirely different political system...
Yeah it is unfortunately shitty. It is more unfoirtunate that we are pretty much stuck with it as changing would require the party in power to choose to reduce their chances of remaining in power, whereas they instead can choose to use their position to increase their entrenchment.
It reminds me of a poker tournament I was playing one time. We were down to the final 5 players and the tourney paid out to the top 4. The current levels of antes and blinds had gotten to be so high, whoever won the hand ended up being the chip leader by default. I noticed this and said hey this is a bit absurd, how about we all agree to split 80% of the pot between the 5 of us (essentially giving each of us a little over triple our entry fee) and winner takes the rest." everyone agreed except A, the current chip leader. So we played on. At the end of the next hand, B became the chip leader. A chimed in to say he wanted to do the split. We all said cool.....except now B objected, saying he didn't want to do it anymore. This went on for a while until I won a hand, became chip leader, then I offered the deal again. Everyone agreed.
Despite it being clear the 'advantage' of being chip leader being a joke, no one wanted to give up their edge.
-
I think a lot depends on 2020 results, and redistricting. Frankly I would prefer for each state to have non parisan groups draw districting maps. I live in NC which by the number of people who vote republican and democrat voters, would be considered a purple state. But you would never know based on number of red/blue reps. What I'm saying it doesn't matter how many blue voters there are, if they are essentially disenfranchized. Not just gerrymandering, but eliminating places to vote, voter id laws, and making it difficult to register to vote or to vote. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/485906-long-voting-lines-in-texas-renew-accusations-of%3famp httpss://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statesman.com/news/20190627/gerrymander-ruling-shifts-focus-to-texas-2020-elections%3ftemplate=ampart personally, I think election day should be a national holiday. Much more meaningful than alot of these other holidays.
As an Australian, I still can't believe that a nation so steeped in rhetoric about being the "greatest democracy on earth" doesn't have independent districting and independent redistribution of electoral divisions. This seems so fundamental to the idea of being a democracy to me...
It helps to know the history behind it. The United States wasn’t founded on the idea that it was a single sovereign country, but a collection of independent states. That came later. People even spoke about the US as plural for the first 80-some years (“the United States are...” instead of “the United States is ....”). Heck, for the first 16 years each state had its own currency.
So: Each state has control over its own districting (not at the federal level), and the same number of representatives in the Senate but loosely based on population for the House. Some states do a better/more independent job than others. Most state constitutions allowed the elected (state) government to draw the districts, but this was established way before anyone realized one could draw maps to allow one group to unfairly hold onto power (i.e. gerrymandering). And the unequal representation at the federal level has grown worse as the population has grown and the urban/rural divide has gotten so much large. Not sure anyone in the 18th century could envision a country with 50 states and 330 million people back then. When the constitution was drafted 96% of the US population were farmers.
FWIW I agree that the gerrymandering of districts and unequal representation is one of the biggest threats to the ‘will of the people’ actually mattering as it should. Just trying to give some context for how it came to be. Both a strength and weakness of the constitution (depending on the circumstance) is how difficult it is to change, and how all laws and precedent are superseded by the constitution.
I can see how it evolved. It is still inconsistent with probably THE most fundamental tenet of democracy. I can see why the two political parties in the US stand to benefit from retaining the system, but to me it seems like 'the will of the people' is being subverted by 'the will of the party(ies)'.
'The will of the party' is a phrase I tend to associate with an entirely different political system...
Yeah it is unfortunately shitty. It is more unfoirtunate that we are pretty much stuck with it as changing would require the party in power to choose to reduce their chances of remaining in power, whereas they instead can choose to use their position to increase their entrenchment.
It reminds me of a poker tournament I was playing one time. We were down to the final 5 players and the tourney paid out to the top 4. The current levels of antes and blinds had gotten to be so high, whoever won the hand ended up being the chip leader by default. I noticed this and said hey this is a bit absurd, how about we all agree to split 80% of the pot between the 5 of us (essentially giving each of us a little over triple our entry fee) and winner takes the rest." everyone agreed except A, the current chip leader. So we played on. At the end of the next hand, B became the chip leader. A chimed in to say he wanted to do the split. We all said cool.....except now B objected, saying he didn't want to do it anymore. This went on for a while until I won a hand, became chip leader, then I offered the deal again. Everyone agreed.
Despite it being clear the 'advantage' of being chip leader being a joke, no one wanted to give up their edge.
Great (and informative) story, Pokerstache @Psychstache!
-
@Telecaster and @Financial.Velociraptor :
Bush was pro-choice when he challenged Reagan in the 1980 primary. By the time he was running again in 1988, he'd become pro-life, acknowledging a rape/incest exception.
Where the Republican Party sits today, that rape/incest exception would make him a dramatic outlier.
-
@Telecaster , loved that. Can I copy/paste into my facebook feed?
Please do.
-
I think a lot depends on 2020 results, and redistricting. Frankly I would prefer for each state to have non parisan groups draw districting maps. I live in NC which by the number of people who vote republican and democrat voters, would be considered a purple state. But you would never know based on number of red/blue reps. What I'm saying it doesn't matter how many blue voters there are, if they are essentially disenfranchized. Not just gerrymandering, but eliminating places to vote, voter id laws, and making it difficult to register to vote or to vote. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/485906-long-voting-lines-in-texas-renew-accusations-of%3famp httpss://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statesman.com/news/20190627/gerrymander-ruling-shifts-focus-to-texas-2020-elections%3ftemplate=ampart personally, I think election day should be a national holiday. Much more meaningful than alot of these other holidays.
As an Australian, I still can't believe that a nation so steeped in rhetoric about being the "greatest democracy on earth" doesn't have independent districting and independent redistribution of electoral divisions. This seems so fundamental to the idea of being a democracy to me...
It helps to know the history behind it. The United States wasn’t founded on the idea that it was a single sovereign country, but a collection of independent states. That came later. People even spoke about the US as plural for the first 80-some years (“the United States are...” instead of “the United States is ....”). Heck, for the first 16 years each state had its own currency.
So: Each state has control over its own districting (not at the federal level), and the same number of representatives in the Senate but loosely based on population for the House. Some states do a better/more independent job than others. Most state constitutions allowed the elected (state) government to draw the districts, but this was established way before anyone realized one could draw maps to allow one group to unfairly hold onto power (i.e. gerrymandering). And the unequal representation at the federal level has grown worse as the population has grown and the urban/rural divide has gotten so much large. Not sure anyone in the 18th century could envision a country with 50 states and 330 million people back then. When the constitution was drafted 96% of the US population were farmers.
FWIW I agree that the gerrymandering of districts and unequal representation is one of the biggest threats to the ‘will of the people’ actually mattering as it should. Just trying to give some context for how it came to be. Both a strength and weakness of the constitution (depending on the circumstance) is how difficult it is to change, and how all laws and precedent are superseded by the constitution.
I can see how it evolved. It is still inconsistent with probably THE most fundamental tenet of democracy. I can see why the two political parties in the US stand to benefit from retaining the system, but to me it seems like 'the will of the people' is being subverted by 'the will of the party(ies)'.
'The will of the party' is a phrase I tend to associate with an entirely different political system...
Yeah it is unfortunately shitty. It is more unfoirtunate that we are pretty much stuck with it as changing would require the party in power to choose to reduce their chances of remaining in power, whereas they instead can choose to use their position to increase their entrenchment.
Fortunately, this is exactly what Democrats did in Virginia when they had their first majority in a generation. It can happen. Unfortunately, it will have to be on a state by state basis since the SC decided they had no authority to act on the issue.
-
I think a lot depends on 2020 results, and redistricting. Frankly I would prefer for each state to have non parisan groups draw districting maps. I live in NC which by the number of people who vote republican and democrat voters, would be considered a purple state. But you would never know based on number of red/blue reps. What I'm saying it doesn't matter how many blue voters there are, if they are essentially disenfranchized. Not just gerrymandering, but eliminating places to vote, voter id laws, and making it difficult to register to vote or to vote. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/485906-long-voting-lines-in-texas-renew-accusations-of%3famp httpss://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statesman.com/news/20190627/gerrymander-ruling-shifts-focus-to-texas-2020-elections%3ftemplate=ampart personally, I think election day should be a national holiday. Much more meaningful than alot of these other holidays.
As an Australian, I still can't believe that a nation so steeped in rhetoric about being the "greatest democracy on earth" doesn't have independent districting and independent redistribution of electoral divisions. This seems so fundamental to the idea of being a democracy to me...
It helps to know the history behind it. The United States wasn’t founded on the idea that it was a single sovereign country, but a collection of independent states. That came later. People even spoke about the US as plural for the first 80-some years (“the United States are...” instead of “the United States is ....”). Heck, for the first 16 years each state had its own currency.
So: Each state has control over its own districting (not at the federal level), and the same number of representatives in the Senate but loosely based on population for the House. Some states do a better/more independent job than others. Most state constitutions allowed the elected (state) government to draw the districts, but this was established way before anyone realized one could draw maps to allow one group to unfairly hold onto power (i.e. gerrymandering). And the unequal representation at the federal level has grown worse as the population has grown and the urban/rural divide has gotten so much large. Not sure anyone in the 18th century could envision a country with 50 states and 330 million people back then. When the constitution was drafted 96% of the US population were farmers.
FWIW I agree that the gerrymandering of districts and unequal representation is one of the biggest threats to the ‘will of the people’ actually mattering as it should. Just trying to give some context for how it came to be. Both a strength and weakness of the constitution (depending on the circumstance) is how difficult it is to change, and how all laws and precedent are superseded by the constitution.
I can see how it evolved. It is still inconsistent with probably THE most fundamental tenet of democracy. I can see why the two political parties in the US stand to benefit from retaining the system, but to me it seems like 'the will of the people' is being subverted by 'the will of the party(ies)'.
'The will of the party' is a phrase I tend to associate with an entirely different political system...
Yeah it is unfortunately shitty. It is more unfoirtunate that we are pretty much stuck with it as changing would require the party in power to choose to reduce their chances of remaining in power, whereas they instead can choose to use their position to increase their entrenchment.
Fortunately, this is exactly what Democrats did in Virginia when they had their first majority in a generation. It can happen. Unfortunately, it will have to be on a state by state basis since the SC decided they had no authority to act on the issue.
I think there's a good case for a constitutional amendment calling for a fixed ratio between the area of a district and its circumference. Yet there is no movement for such a thing. I suspect the issue is over the heads of most voters.
-
I think there's a good case for a constitutional amendment calling for a fixed ratio between the area of a district and its circumference. Yet there is no movement for such a thing. I suspect the issue is over the heads of most voters.
LOL.
I think it has a 1 in 3.14 chance of passing.
-
I think a lot depends on 2020 results, and redistricting. Frankly I would prefer for each state to have non parisan groups draw districting maps. I live in NC which by the number of people who vote republican and democrat voters, would be considered a purple state. But you would never know based on number of red/blue reps. What I'm saying it doesn't matter how many blue voters there are, if they are essentially disenfranchized. Not just gerrymandering, but eliminating places to vote, voter id laws, and making it difficult to register to vote or to vote. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/485906-long-voting-lines-in-texas-renew-accusations-of%3famp httpss://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statesman.com/news/20190627/gerrymander-ruling-shifts-focus-to-texas-2020-elections%3ftemplate=ampart personally, I think election day should be a national holiday. Much more meaningful than alot of these other holidays.
As an Australian, I still can't believe that a nation so steeped in rhetoric about being the "greatest democracy on earth" doesn't have independent districting and independent redistribution of electoral divisions. This seems so fundamental to the idea of being a democracy to me...
It helps to know the history behind it. The United States wasn’t founded on the idea that it was a single sovereign country, but a collection of independent states. That came later. People even spoke about the US as plural for the first 80-some years (“the United States are...” instead of “the United States is ....”). Heck, for the first 16 years each state had its own currency.
So: Each state has control over its own districting (not at the federal level), and the same number of representatives in the Senate but loosely based on population for the House. Some states do a better/more independent job than others. Most state constitutions allowed the elected (state) government to draw the districts, but this was established way before anyone realized one could draw maps to allow one group to unfairly hold onto power (i.e. gerrymandering). And the unequal representation at the federal level has grown worse as the population has grown and the urban/rural divide has gotten so much large. Not sure anyone in the 18th century could envision a country with 50 states and 330 million people back then. When the constitution was drafted 96% of the US population were farmers.
FWIW I agree that the gerrymandering of districts and unequal representation is one of the biggest threats to the ‘will of the people’ actually mattering as it should. Just trying to give some context for how it came to be. Both a strength and weakness of the constitution (depending on the circumstance) is how difficult it is to change, and how all laws and precedent are superseded by the constitution.
I can see how it evolved. It is still inconsistent with probably THE most fundamental tenet of democracy. I can see why the two political parties in the US stand to benefit from retaining the system, but to me it seems like 'the will of the people' is being subverted by 'the will of the party(ies)'.
'The will of the party' is a phrase I tend to associate with an entirely different political system...
Yeah it is unfortunately shitty. It is more unfoirtunate that we are pretty much stuck with it as changing would require the party in power to choose to reduce their chances of remaining in power, whereas they instead can choose to use their position to increase their entrenchment.
Fortunately, this is exactly what Democrats did in Virginia when they had their first majority in a generation. It can happen. Unfortunately, it will have to be on a state by state basis since the SC decided they had no authority to act on the issue.
That the supreme court decided they had no authority to act on the issue, is ridiculous. That is exactly the kind of circumstances where a ruling by the supreme court can insure all Americans have a right to vote, and more importantly their vote counts. It's a constitutional right.
-
The right to vote is granted by the constitution, but the manner in which elections are held and districts established are given explicitly to the states, thereby limiting SCOTUS’s authority to rule even on clearly unfair, partisan districting.
...at least that was their interpretation.
-
The right to vote is granted by the constitution, but the manner in which elections are held and districts established are given explicitly to the states, thereby limiting SCOTUS’s authority to rule even on clearly unfair, partisan districting.
...at least that was their interpretation.
Or to put it another way, SCOTUS ruled;
You have the right to vote and the State has the right to ensure your vote doesn't actually matter.
-
Currently in Texas the mayor’s of Houston, Austin, and Dallas, are all Democrats, with San Antonio’s being an independent.
This doesn’t really surprise me, however much of the rest of the state, especially the rural areas, are INCREDIBLY right.
-
@Telecaster and @Financial.Velociraptor :
Bush was pro-choice when he challenged Reagan in the 1980 primary. By the time he was running again in 1988, he'd become pro-life, acknowledging a rape/incest exception.
Where the Republican Party sits today, that rape/incest exception would make him a dramatic outlier.
Yeah, the complete capitulation of the GOP's leading officeholders to the evangelical base during the '90s is pretty striking. Bush Snr really disliked them. Famously, during the mid to late 80s, Neil Bush gave a speech on behalf of his father in Iowa(!) where he referred to evangelical Christians as “cockroaches" issuing 'from the "baseboards of the Bible-belt," which is a phrase that I still find very entertaining.
Try to imagine that happening now. Or even a handful of years later, by which point the GOP was on its knees for the evangelical base to the eventual exclusion of nearly all other considerations. Which worked out ok for them, I guess.
-
They still are. Exhibits A-F are the abortion bans that are popping up in state after state.
-
@Telecaster and @Financial.Velociraptor :
Bush was pro-choice when he challenged Reagan in the 1980 primary. By the time he was running again in 1988, he'd become pro-life, acknowledging a rape/incest exception.
Where the Republican Party sits today, that rape/incest exception would make him a dramatic outlier.
Yeah, the complete capitulation of the GOP's leading officeholders to the evangelical base during the '90s is pretty striking. Bush Snr really disliked them. Famously, during the mid to late 80s, Neil Bush gave a speech on behalf of his father in Iowa(!) where he referred to evangelical Christians as “cockroaches" issuing 'from the "baseboards of the Bible-belt," which is a phrase that I still find very entertaining.
Try to imagine that happening now. Or even a handful of years later, by which point the GOP was on its knees for the evangelical base to the eventual exclusion of nearly all other considerations. Which worked out ok for them, I guess.
Makes me wonder: If 20% of the population became well-organized radicals (e.g. like Hezbollah or the Taliban), would at least one of the major parties make this their new "center"? Would both parties shift in the radical direction?
Small radical movements make a big difference in a country where only half of us vote in major elections, and maybe a few percent in minor local elections.
-
@Telecaster and @Financial.Velociraptor :
Bush was pro-choice when he challenged Reagan in the 1980 primary. By the time he was running again in 1988, he'd become pro-life, acknowledging a rape/incest exception.
Where the Republican Party sits today, that rape/incest exception would make him a dramatic outlier.
Yeah, the complete capitulation of the GOP's leading officeholders to the evangelical base during the '90s is pretty striking. Bush Snr really disliked them. Famously, during the mid to late 80s, Neil Bush gave a speech on behalf of his father in Iowa(!) where he referred to evangelical Christians as “cockroaches" issuing 'from the "baseboards of the Bible-belt," which is a phrase that I still find very entertaining.
Try to imagine that happening now. Or even a handful of years later, by which point the GOP was on its knees for the evangelical base to the eventual exclusion of nearly all other considerations. Which worked out ok for them, I guess.
Makes me wonder: If 20% of the population became well-organized radicals (e.g. like Hezbollah or the Taliban), would at least one of the major parties make this their new "center"? Would both parties shift in the radical direction?
Small radical movements make a big difference in a country where only half of us vote in major elections, and maybe a few percent in minor local elections.
Who needs 20%?
Think 3.5%. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world
To be fair, the "3.5% rule" applies mostly to "revolutions" and such, and not to normal democratic processes. The point stands, however, that a sufficiently motivated minority << 20% can bring about large changes.
-
@Telecaster and @Financial.Velociraptor :
Bush was pro-choice when he challenged Reagan in the 1980 primary. By the time he was running again in 1988, he'd become pro-life, acknowledging a rape/incest exception.
Where the Republican Party sits today, that rape/incest exception would make him a dramatic outlier.
Yeah, the complete capitulation of the GOP's leading officeholders to the evangelical base during the '90s is pretty striking. Bush Snr really disliked them. Famously, during the mid to late 80s, Neil Bush gave a speech on behalf of his father in Iowa(!) where he referred to evangelical Christians as “cockroaches" issuing 'from the "baseboards of the Bible-belt," which is a phrase that I still find very entertaining.
Try to imagine that happening now. Or even a handful of years later, by which point the GOP was on its knees for the evangelical base to the eventual exclusion of nearly all other considerations. Which worked out ok for them, I guess.
Makes me wonder: If 20% of the population became well-organized radicals (e.g. like Hezbollah or the Taliban), would at least one of the major parties make this their new "center"? Would both parties shift in the radical direction?
Small radical movements make a big difference in a country where only half of us vote in major elections, and maybe a few percent in minor local elections.
This is probably more or less what happened with the GOP. Religiosity in the U.S. has been declining for decades ('nones' now comprise almost a quarter of the U.S. population). But evangelicals have been growing as a proportion of that shrinking religious population, and currently comprise just over 25% of the religious population. And the GOP has shifted its policies further right as this shift happened.
So essentially, you have about one-quarter of the population with very strong, 'radical' policy preferences (super conservative) running one party. By default (b/c the Dem party isn't organized enough to do things on purpose IMO), you have the Dems representing (loosely) another one-quarter of the population, but a quarter that doesn't have nearly as strong or coherent a platform (b/c it is composed of far more variable group members).
ETA: 'radical' in scare quotes b/c I'm not comparing the evangelicals in the U.S. to Hezbollah/Taliban. Not so far, anyway. It's possible they could get there eventually.
-
Evangelicals are having their moment of political power right now. I’m doubtful it will last for several more cycles though. As a party (in this case the GOP) moves towards a group to garner their vote they risk alienating the rest of their party. So far the GOP has been able to skate that line because Republicans have very deep identity politics - much stronger than Dems right now. A whole lot of boomers can’t bring themselves to support anyone but the GOP, their identity is so strong.
But... catering to the evangelicals is turning off hoards of potential future voters. GenX’s haven’t shifted to the GOP the way their parents did around their age bracket (when taxes and regulations and wealth-preservation suddenly start to matter a lot more). The younger generations are far less likely to consider themselves evangelical, and see a huge amount of hypocrisy in supporting a thrice-married serial adulterer that scorns most every lesson in the Bible and embodies at least four of the deadly sins.
-
ETA: 'radical' in scare quotes b/c I'm not comparing the evangelicals in the U.S. to Hezbollah/Taliban. Not so far, anyway. It's possible they could get there eventually.
I mean, 89% of White Evangelical Protestants believe (https://www.pewforum.org/2020/03/12/white-evangelicals-see-trump-as-fighting-for-their-beliefs-though-many-have-mixed-feelings-about-his-personal-conduct/#half-of-americans-say-the-bible-should-influence-u-s-laws) that the Bible should have at least some influence on US laws, and 68% of them think that the Bible should take precedence over the will of the people.
That's the same underlying philosophy that Hezbollah/Taliban have, is it not? See for example the recent example of gay marriage, where they all very explicitly came out against allowing other people to freely exercise their religious beliefs, and for using the government to force "my version of my religion" down everyone else's throats.
It's more just a matter of degrees then it is any qualitative difference.
-
ETA: 'radical' in scare quotes b/c I'm not comparing the evangelicals in the U.S. to Hezbollah/Taliban. Not so far, anyway. It's possible they could get there eventually.
I mean, 89% of White Evangelical Protestants believe (https://www.pewforum.org/2020/03/12/white-evangelicals-see-trump-as-fighting-for-their-beliefs-though-many-have-mixed-feelings-about-his-personal-conduct/#half-of-americans-say-the-bible-should-influence-u-s-laws) that the Bible should have at least some influence on US laws, and 68% of them think that the Bible should take precedence over the will of the people.
That's the same underlying philosophy that Hezbollah/Taliban have, is it not? See for example the recent example of gay marriage, where they all very explicitly came out against allowing other people to freely exercise their religious beliefs, and for using the government to force "my version of my religion" down everyone else's throats.
It's more just a matter of degrees then it is any qualitative difference.
I was trying to be politer than I actually feel.
-
ETA: 'radical' in scare quotes b/c I'm not comparing the evangelicals in the U.S. to Hezbollah/Taliban. Not so far, anyway. It's possible they could get there eventually.
I mean, 89% of White Evangelical Protestants believe (https://www.pewforum.org/2020/03/12/white-evangelicals-see-trump-as-fighting-for-their-beliefs-though-many-have-mixed-feelings-about-his-personal-conduct/#half-of-americans-say-the-bible-should-influence-u-s-laws) that the Bible should have at least some influence on US laws, and 68% of them think that the Bible should take precedence over the will of the people.
That's the same underlying philosophy that Hezbollah/Taliban have, is it not? See for example the recent example of gay marriage, where they all very explicitly came out against allowing other people to freely exercise their religious beliefs, and for using the government to force "my version of my religion" down everyone else's throats.
It's more just a matter of degrees then it is any qualitative difference.
I was trying to be politer than I actually feel.
I suppose if you consider "murdering people who disagree with you" and "not murdering people who disagree with you" to be equivalent, these are rational views for you both to hold.
-
Evangelicals are having their moment of political power right now. I’m doubtful it will last for several more cycles though. As a party (in this case the GOP) moves towards a group to garner their vote they risk alienating the rest of their party. So far the GOP has been able to skate that line because Republicans have very deep identity politics - much stronger than Dems right now. A whole lot of boomers can’t bring themselves to support anyone but the GOP, their identity is so strong.
But... catering to the evangelicals is turning off hoards of potential future voters. GenX’s haven’t shifted to the GOP the way their parents did around their age bracket (when taxes and regulations and wealth-preservation suddenly start to matter a lot more). The younger generations are far less likely to consider themselves evangelical, and see a huge amount of hypocrisy in supporting a thrice-married serial adulterer that scorns most every lesson in the Bible and embodies at least four of the deadly sins.
I've been hearing the generational argument for decades now. Truth is, evangelicals have and adopt more babies than liberals. They are willing to work, spend, and sacrifice to pursue their cause and to recruit more people. They own the majority of radio and TV stations/sites, and have their own national news network. Most importantly, they are organized, which is the only route to political power. Meanwhile, labor unions, civil rights organizations, and civic clubs have all been in steep decline for decades.
And if the discovery of networks of pedo priests/pastors/ministers who had been hypocritically telling everyone else how to live didn't run evangelicals out of their churches, I wouldn't expect Trump to bother them.
-
ETA: 'radical' in scare quotes b/c I'm not comparing the evangelicals in the U.S. to Hezbollah/Taliban. Not so far, anyway. It's possible they could get there eventually.
I mean, 89% of White Evangelical Protestants believe (https://www.pewforum.org/2020/03/12/white-evangelicals-see-trump-as-fighting-for-their-beliefs-though-many-have-mixed-feelings-about-his-personal-conduct/#half-of-americans-say-the-bible-should-influence-u-s-laws) that the Bible should have at least some influence on US laws, and 68% of them think that the Bible should take precedence over the will of the people.
That's the same underlying philosophy that Hezbollah/Taliban have, is it not? See for example the recent example of gay marriage, where they all very explicitly came out against allowing other people to freely exercise their religious beliefs, and for using the government to force "my version of my religion" down everyone else's throats.
It's more just a matter of degrees then it is any qualitative difference.
I was trying to be politer than I actually feel.
I suppose if you consider "murdering people who disagree with you" and "not murdering people who disagree with you" to be equivalent, these are rational views for you both to hold.
IDK, evangelicals were pretty enthusiastic about the wars against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pretty sure the body count of those adventures in futility exceed Hezbollah and the Taliban put together.
The administration is also running "camps" for people of a certain ethnicity that are rumored to involve disease, rape, and squalid conditions, but we can't know for sure because the press isn't allowed in. These could develop into something. Who knows?
-
ETA: 'radical' in scare quotes b/c I'm not comparing the evangelicals in the U.S. to Hezbollah/Taliban. Not so far, anyway. It's possible they could get there eventually.
I mean, 89% of White Evangelical Protestants believe (https://www.pewforum.org/2020/03/12/white-evangelicals-see-trump-as-fighting-for-their-beliefs-though-many-have-mixed-feelings-about-his-personal-conduct/#half-of-americans-say-the-bible-should-influence-u-s-laws) that the Bible should have at least some influence on US laws, and 68% of them think that the Bible should take precedence over the will of the people.
That's the same underlying philosophy that Hezbollah/Taliban have, is it not? See for example the recent example of gay marriage, where they all very explicitly came out against allowing other people to freely exercise their religious beliefs, and for using the government to force "my version of my religion" down everyone else's throats.
It's more just a matter of degrees then it is any qualitative difference.
I was trying to be politer than I actually feel.
I suppose if you consider "murdering people who disagree with you" and "not murdering people who disagree with you" to be equivalent, these are rational views for you both to hold.
Hmmmmmm, are all evangelicals who ever ejaculated, mass murderers?
-
I appreciate your feedback. It doesn't seem like there's much appetite for an actual substantive discussion anymore so I'll leave you to your thread.
-
I appreciate your feedback. It doesn't seem like there's much appetite for an actual substantive discussion anymore so I'll leave you to your thread.
I'm seriously concerned (even scared) of the world where the sperm or the ovum are conferred "personhood"!!
Capital punishment for ejaculation, and involuntary manslaughter for ovulation!! Holy shit!!!!!
I need to contact the Handmaid's Tale producers. I can get rich off this idea. Thank you!!
-
ETA: 'radical' in scare quotes b/c I'm not comparing the evangelicals in the U.S. to Hezbollah/Taliban. Not so far, anyway. It's possible they could get there eventually.
I mean, 89% of White Evangelical Protestants believe (https://www.pewforum.org/2020/03/12/white-evangelicals-see-trump-as-fighting-for-their-beliefs-though-many-have-mixed-feelings-about-his-personal-conduct/#half-of-americans-say-the-bible-should-influence-u-s-laws) that the Bible should have at least some influence on US laws, and 68% of them think that the Bible should take precedence over the will of the people.
That's the same underlying philosophy that Hezbollah/Taliban have, is it not? See for example the recent example of gay marriage, where they all very explicitly came out against allowing other people to freely exercise their religious beliefs, and for using the government to force "my version of my religion" down everyone else's throats.
It's more just a matter of degrees then it is any qualitative difference.
I was trying to be politer than I actually feel.
I suppose if you consider "murdering people who disagree with you" and "not murdering people who disagree with you" to be equivalent, these are rational views for you both to hold.
IDK, evangelicals were pretty enthusiastic about the wars against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pretty sure the body count of those adventures in futility exceed Hezbollah and the Taliban put together.
The administration is also running "camps" for people of a certain ethnicity that are rumored to involve disease, rape, and squalid conditions, but we can't know for sure because the press isn't allowed in. These could develop into something. Who knows?
I appreciate your feedback. It doesn't seem like there's much appetite for an actual substantive discussion anymore so I'll leave you to your thread.
Hmmm. Well I think you kind of started it with the "murder v not murder" comment, and that ChpBstrd was just responding in kind. The war part is a substantive point, I've never met any population of people in this country that are as war-loving as evangelicals are, even when both of the mentioned wars are based on blatant lies. And there have been plenty of abortion-related evangelical murderers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States) in the US, especially in the 90s.
My point was that when 2/3 of a population admit that they are perfectly happy to undermine democracy in order to force their religious ideals on others, when they openly and enthusiastically refer to themselves as "the army of God" and raise their kids with an "us vs them (non-evangelicals or non-Christians)" mentality, when the political issues they get most riled up about are all solely tied to repressing minority groups that they don't like (atheists, gays, transgenders, Muslims, etc), well, that's not a good recipe.
The difference at that point is mostly one of radicalization/desperation. Obviously very few people in one of the wealthiest nations in the world are going to be as radical/desperate as the people in the Middle East are. But the seeds are all there. The moral certainty that "we are right and we should rule everyone else who is obviously wrong, and we are doing God's work in the process" has been responsible for a great many evils in history.
I'm a Christian, but Trump-loving Evangelicals terrify me. They demonstrate none of the politics that I would expect out of either Christians or Patriots. Their god and their sole loyalty is to Republican-Evangelicalism, and they are perfectly happy to sacrifice every moral, every law, and every bit of Truth or Justice for their god.
-
Of note https://www.rawstory.com/2020/06/polls-suggest-joe-biden-has-a-shot-at-winning-texas-how-he-fares-here-could-reshape-the-states-politics/?utm_source&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4792&fbclid=IwAR1JeXkumU5t8yf-sjxgsFdDMSw5v-pTk11j9IqI8qy1mGJPtq_oRg8R0Oc (https://www.rawstory.com/2020/06/polls-suggest-joe-biden-has-a-shot-at-winning-texas-how-he-fares-here-could-reshape-the-states-politics/?utm_source&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4792&fbclid=IwAR1JeXkumU5t8yf-sjxgsFdDMSw5v-pTk11j9IqI8qy1mGJPtq_oRg8R0Oc)
-
^ Superb story!
-
Of note https://www.rawstory.com/2020/06/polls-suggest-joe-biden-has-a-shot-at-winning-texas-how-he-fares-here-could-reshape-the-states-politics/?utm_source&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4792&fbclid=IwAR1JeXkumU5t8yf-sjxgsFdDMSw5v-pTk11j9IqI8qy1mGJPtq_oRg8R0Oc (https://www.rawstory.com/2020/06/polls-suggest-joe-biden-has-a-shot-at-winning-texas-how-he-fares-here-could-reshape-the-states-politics/?utm_source&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4792&fbclid=IwAR1JeXkumU5t8yf-sjxgsFdDMSw5v-pTk11j9IqI8qy1mGJPtq_oRg8R0Oc)
Democrats need about a 5-10% polling lead to generate a 1% election lead because the voting rates are so much lower. Many of the people who answer a poll will not cast a ballot.
Coronavirus is the real wildcard. If the president's supporters are less likely to take precautions and get sick for several weeks around election time, it could cause the electorate to swing Democratic. If it hits urban areas harder than rural areas, it could swing Republican. If religious people crowded into buildings together are hit hardest, it could swing Democratic. If Democrats are more likely to skip in-person voting because of health concerns, it could swing Republican. Then there is the question of which demographic is more likely to be out of work and have time to vote.
-
Of note https://www.rawstory.com/2020/06/polls-suggest-joe-biden-has-a-shot-at-winning-texas-how-he-fares-here-could-reshape-the-states-politics/?utm_source&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4792&fbclid=IwAR1JeXkumU5t8yf-sjxgsFdDMSw5v-pTk11j9IqI8qy1mGJPtq_oRg8R0Oc (https://www.rawstory.com/2020/06/polls-suggest-joe-biden-has-a-shot-at-winning-texas-how-he-fares-here-could-reshape-the-states-politics/?utm_source&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4792&fbclid=IwAR1JeXkumU5t8yf-sjxgsFdDMSw5v-pTk11j9IqI8qy1mGJPtq_oRg8R0Oc)
Democrats need about a 5-10% polling lead to generate a 1% election lead because the voting rates are so much lower. Many of the people who answer a poll will not cast a ballot.
this si the difference between polls which measure likely voters, registered voters and all voters (or all adults).
Most of the polls which have shown Biden with a 7-9% lead nationally are among Likely Voters.
-
Of note https://www.rawstory.com/2020/06/polls-suggest-joe-biden-has-a-shot-at-winning-texas-how-he-fares-here-could-reshape-the-states-politics/?utm_source&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4792&fbclid=IwAR1JeXkumU5t8yf-sjxgsFdDMSw5v-pTk11j9IqI8qy1mGJPtq_oRg8R0Oc (https://www.rawstory.com/2020/06/polls-suggest-joe-biden-has-a-shot-at-winning-texas-how-he-fares-here-could-reshape-the-states-politics/?utm_source&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4792&fbclid=IwAR1JeXkumU5t8yf-sjxgsFdDMSw5v-pTk11j9IqI8qy1mGJPtq_oRg8R0Oc)
Democrats need about a 5-10% polling lead to generate a 1% election lead because the voting rates are so much lower. Many of the people who answer a poll will not cast a ballot.
Coronavirus is the real wildcard. If the president's supporters are less likely to take precautions and get sick for several weeks around election time, it could cause the electorate to swing Democratic. If it hits urban areas harder than rural areas, it could swing Republican. If religious people crowded into buildings together are hit hardest, it could swing Democratic. If Democrats are more likely to skip in-person voting because of health concerns, it could swing Republican. Then there is the question of which demographic is more likely to be out of work and have time to vote.
I'm a cynic. Trump's supporters are more often in low-density areas where they open a polling place for fifteen people. Many Biden votes will come from urban areas, where they open a single polling place for thousands, and can make them stand all together while they wait in line.
-
Of note https://www.rawstory.com/2020/06/polls-suggest-joe-biden-has-a-shot-at-winning-texas-how-he-fares-here-could-reshape-the-states-politics/?utm_source&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4792&fbclid=IwAR1JeXkumU5t8yf-sjxgsFdDMSw5v-pTk11j9IqI8qy1mGJPtq_oRg8R0Oc (https://www.rawstory.com/2020/06/polls-suggest-joe-biden-has-a-shot-at-winning-texas-how-he-fares-here-could-reshape-the-states-politics/?utm_source&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4792&fbclid=IwAR1JeXkumU5t8yf-sjxgsFdDMSw5v-pTk11j9IqI8qy1mGJPtq_oRg8R0Oc)
Democrats need about a 5-10% polling lead to generate a 1% election lead because the voting rates are so much lower. Many of the people who answer a poll will not cast a ballot.
Coronavirus is the real wildcard. If the president's supporters are less likely to take precautions and get sick for several weeks around election time, it could cause the electorate to swing Democratic. If it hits urban areas harder than rural areas, it could swing Republican. If religious people crowded into buildings together are hit hardest, it could swing Democratic. If Democrats are more likely to skip in-person voting because of health concerns, it could swing Republican. Then there is the question of which demographic is more likely to be out of work and have time to vote.
I'm a cynic. Trump's supporters are more often in low-density areas where they open a polling place for fifteen people. Many Biden votes will come from urban areas, where they open a single polling place for thousands, and can make them stand all together while they wait in line.
True, but a big part of Trump's base is the above 65 crowd, which is exactly the group coronavirus kills at an alarming rate. I wonder if a large portion of them will stay home instead of standing in a voting line. Lots of factors.
-
I appreciate your feedback. It doesn't seem like there's much appetite for an actual substantive discussion anymore so I'll leave you to your thread.
I'm seriously concerned (even scared) of the world where the sperm or the ovum are conferred "personhood"!!
Capital punishment for ejaculation, and involuntary manslaughter for ovulation!! Holy shit!!!!!
I need to contact the Handmaid's Tale producers. I can get rich off this idea. Thank you!!
Huh. I misread your original post when you talked about "murder". You meant actual political violence committed by Al-Queda. I assumed/read "baby murder" (the favorite stupid phrase that bible-thumpers like to use in the abortion debate).
I just read your post about Daryl Davis, and that did not compute with my earlier misconstrued image of a bigoted bible thumper running around using stupid phrases like "baby murder". So I went back, re-read and figured out my mistake.
I wanted to publicly post this as a "recantation" of my mocking remark, that was not warranted!
-
I appreciate your feedback. It doesn't seem like there's much appetite for an actual substantive discussion anymore so I'll leave you to your thread.
I'm seriously concerned (even scared) of the world where the sperm or the ovum are conferred "personhood"!!
Capital punishment for ejaculation, and involuntary manslaughter for ovulation!! Holy shit!!!!!
I need to contact the Handmaid's Tale producers. I can get rich off this idea. Thank you!!
Huh. I misread your original post when you talked about "murder". You meant actual political violence committed by Al-Queda. I assumed/read "baby murder" (the favorite stupid phrase that bible-thumpers like to use in the abortion debate).
I just read your post about Daryl Davis, and that did not compute with my earlier misconstrued image of a bigoted bible thumper running around using stupid phrases like "baby murder". So I went back, re-read and figured out my mistake.
I wanted to publicly post this as a "recantation" of my mocking remark, that was not warranted!
Thanks very much for the clarification! Communication on the internet is so difficult due to lack of context. I don't even remember what we were arguing about anymore. Lol.
-
I actually believe that Texas goes blue 2020. If not it's within one or two percent. By 2024 I just don't see Texas red again. The demographics just don't allow it.
-
I actually believe that Texas goes blue 2020. If not it's within one or two percent. By 2024 I just don't see Texas red again. The demographics just don't allow it.
You might be right if
(a) Trump continues with his pandemic denialism, and
(b) Texas gets overrun by COVID-19 cases, as is about to occur, and
(c) State officials do not break with Trump and enact strict protocols even as public opinion turns, and
(d) The timing of this convergence is not too late to affect the election.
But I don't think it's because of demographics unless you mean a trend in the percentage of each demographic who actually votes. In 2016, only 40.5% of "Hispanics" voted, compared to 62% of "whites", a modest improvement from the previous election cycle even in the face of a clearly anti-Hispanic candidate. The "black" vote collapsed by almost 6%.
https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/11/hispanic-turnout-2016-election/ (https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/11/hispanic-turnout-2016-election/)
-
I actually believe that Texas goes blue 2020. If not it's within one or two percent. By 2024 I just don't see Texas red again. The demographics just don't allow it.
You might be right if
(a) Trump continues with his pandemic denialism, and
(b) Texas gets overrun by COVID-19 cases, as is about to occur, and
(c) State officials do not break with Trump and enact strict protocols even as public opinion turns, and
(d) The timing of this convergence is not too late to affect the election.
But I don't think it's because of demographics unless you mean a trend in the percentage of each demographic who actually votes. In 2016, only 40.5% of "Hispanics" voted, compared to 62% of "whites", a modest improvement from the previous election cycle even in the face of a clearly anti-Hispanic candidate. The "black" vote collapsed by almost 6%.
https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/11/hispanic-turnout-2016-election/ (https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/11/hispanic-turnout-2016-election/)
I don't think TX goes blue this cycle but I think it will be close. I can't say much about whether hispanics will vote but I expect record black turnout. Here in Houston, the street protests are basically non-stop since George Floyd (he was from here - 3rd Ward). Blacks are currently very politically active here. If Biden choose a black woman as VP, that seals it.
-
I actually believe that Texas goes blue 2020. If not it's within one or two percent. By 2024 I just don't see Texas red again. The demographics just don't allow it.
You might be right if
(a) Trump continues with his pandemic denialism, and
(b) Texas gets overrun by COVID-19 cases, as is about to occur, and
(c) State officials do not break with Trump and enact strict protocols even as public opinion turns, and
(d) The timing of this convergence is not too late to affect the election.
But I don't think it's because of demographics unless you mean a trend in the percentage of each demographic who actually votes. In 2016, only 40.5% of "Hispanics" voted, compared to 62% of "whites", a modest improvement from the previous election cycle even in the face of a clearly anti-Hispanic candidate. The "black" vote collapsed by almost 6%.
https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/11/hispanic-turnout-2016-election/ (https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/11/hispanic-turnout-2016-election/)
I don't think TX goes blue this cycle but I think it will be close. I can't say much about whether hispanics will vote but I expect record black turnout. Here in Houston, the street protests are basically non-stop since George Floyd (he was from here - 3rd Ward). Blacks are currently very politically active here. If Biden choose a black woman as VP, that seals it.
The polling of voters and likely voters is currently showing a toss-up:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/texas/
If it’s this close right now, before Biden has chosen a POC woman running mate (he will), and before Texas has started seeing the resulting Covid deaths from their accelerated cases (they will), and before the Main Street pain of mass evictions (coming in the next months, moratoriums currently lifting), well... the probability that the next 5 months tip towards Biden’s favor is much higher than Trump’s.
-
The polling of voters and likely voters is currently showing a toss-up:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/texas/
If it’s this close right now, before Biden has chosen a POC woman running mate (he will), and before Texas has started seeing the resulting Covid deaths from their accelerated cases (they will), and before the Main Street pain of mass evictions (coming in the next months, moratoriums currently lifting), well... the probability that the next 5 months tip towards Biden’s favor is much higher than Trump’s.
I am quite apprehensive that voter suppression will override all these. The pandemic gives the state government(s) a lot more tools of voter suppression in the big cities and relatively dense suburbs, which is where thee Democratic base primarily is.
I don't participate in the election thread. But if you asked me to bet $10 on the outcome, I would predict Trump will win, despite the (in my opinion misguided) overconfidence from democrats in the recent week or two.
-
If Texas goes Blue, there is no plauseable path for Trump to win re-election.
I tend to think Texas will remain red for 2020, but that it will be much too close for comfort for the GOP. My guestimate that Trump wins in Texas by 2-3%.
-
With the polling that close, the RNC and Trump will have to spend ad money in Texas. Previously, those millions would've been used in Florida or PA or MI.
-
With the polling that close, the RNC and Trump will have to spend ad money in Texas. Previously, those millions would've been used in Florida or PA or MI.
True - but I think there's two important caveats here:
- Trump and the RNC have an enormous lead over the Dems in money-to-spend*
- How much a campaign spends isn't the determining factor much of the time**
*As of June 20th, 2020, Trump had raised $996MM to Biden's $557MM and had $108MM on hand compared to Biden's $82MM. In addition, the RNC has $82MM cash-on-hand to the DNC's almost $40MM, and two affiliates, tjhe 'MAGA' ($21MM) and 'Trump Victory' ($47MM) give DJT almost double the cash-on-hand compared to Biden. In addition, Trump has spent at least double what Biden has spent every month this year (through the June filing). In 2016 Trump spent $65MM of his own money (of a promised $100MM). It's unknown whether he can or will do that again this time.
This excludes the RNC and DNC totals, much of which will be spent on down-ballot races.
** Consider that HRC outspent DJT nearly 2:1 in 2016 yet lost. In mdoersn politics it seems you need to have enough cash to stay in the race, but you rapidly hit a point of deminishing returns, and drastically overspending your opponent does not guarantee a deluge of voters.
-
With the polling that close, the RNC and Trump will have to spend ad money in Texas. Previously, those millions would've been used in Florida or PA or MI.
True - but I think there's two important caveats here:
- Trump and the RNC have an enormous lead over the Dems in money-to-spend*
- How much a campaign spends isn't the determining factor much of the time**
*As of June 20th, 2020, Trump had raised $996MM to Biden's $557MM and had $108MM on hand compared to Biden's $82MM. In addition, the RNC has $82MM cash-on-hand to the DNC's almost $40MM, and two affiliates, tjhe 'MAGA' ($21MM) and 'Trump Victory' ($47MM) give DJT almost double the cash-on-hand compared to Biden. In addition, Trump has spent at least double what Biden has spent every month this year (through the June filing). In 2016 Trump spent $65MM of his own money (of a promised $100MM). It's unknown whether he can or will do that again this time.
This excludes the RNC and DNC totals, much of which will be spent on down-ballot races.
** Consider that HRC outspent DJT nearly 2:1 in 2016 yet lost. In mdoersn politics it seems you need to have enough cash to stay in the race, but you rapidly hit a point of deminishing returns, and drastically overspending your opponent does not guarantee a deluge of voters.
I'm hoping that Biden's lower totals is due to the primary and will increase in the future. It doesn't seem to have hurt Biden's polling so far, though most of that is due to Trump working against himself.
-
If Trump continues to be his own biggest opponent Biden won't need to come out of his basement until January 20th.
Of course, I expect that Trump will find some way of regaining traction and pushing his approval back into the mid-40s - mostly by dragging Biden into some non-existent 'scandal' again. Which (ironically) is just high enough that he might be able to eek out an EC win even with a large popular vote loss (again).
-
If Trump continues to be his own biggest opponent Biden won't need to come out of his basement until January 20th.
Of course, I expect that Trump will find some way of regaining traction and pushing his approval back into the mid-40s - mostly by dragging Biden into some non-existent 'scandal' again. Which (ironically) is just high enough that he might be able to eek out an EC win even with a large popular vote loss (again).
Bingo.
And voter suppression - that won't reflect in polling numbers.
I don't want it to happen, but I am afraid it will.
-
Why do people keep saying voter supression isn't reflected in polling numbers? For quality polls, it absolutely *is*.
They adjust for the likelihood that each indivdual will actually vote based on their age, ethnicity, geographic location, whether they are currently registered etc. Polls of "likely voters" already consider that a 30-something person of color is less likely to vote than a 65yo white male, and much of that is due to voter suppression.
-
Why do people keep saying voter supression isn't reflected in polling numbers? For quality polls, it absolutely *is*.
They adjust for the likelihood that each indivdual will actually vote based on their age, ethnicity, geographic location, whether they are currently registered etc. Polls of "likely voters" already consider that a 30-something person of color is less likely to vote than a 65yo white male, and much of that is due to voter suppression.
But it's a lagging adjustment. They estimate "likelyhood to vote" based on previous elections, which is the only numeric way to do it. If voter suppression is much strong this year, then those numbers will be off.
-
Why do people keep saying voter supression isn't reflected in polling numbers? For quality polls, it absolutely *is*.
They adjust for the likelihood that each indivdual will actually vote based on their age, ethnicity, geographic location, whether they are currently registered etc. Polls of "likely voters" already consider that a 30-something person of color is less likely to vote than a 65yo white male, and much of that is due to voter suppression.
But it's a lagging adjustment. They estimate "likelyhood to vote" based on previous elections, which is the only numeric way to do it. If voter suppression is much strong this year, then those numbers will be off.
No arguments there, but that's rarely expressed. In the same vein, 'enthusiasm' is also a lagging adjustment; it assumes that young people won't vote in high numbers when there's an incumbent on that ballot. We won't know for certain whether this pattern repeats itself until after the election.
-
Trump’s odds in this particular betting market are 44% today.
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election (https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election)
Not a bad wager considering the need for travel, apartment deposit, and an emigration lawyer if he wins.
-
Trump’s odds in this particular betting market are 44% today.
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election (https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election)
Not a bad wager considering the need for travel, apartment deposit, and an emigration lawyer if he wins.
Or, inexplicably, you could toss your money towards a laundry list of people who have no delegates whatsoever, including Mark Zuckerberg and Tusli Gabbard. It's kind of bizarre that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (both of whom actually have deligates and were in the primary) are equal to the libertarian Jo Jorgenson and the retired Republican Paul Ryan.
-
Trump’s odds in this particular betting market are 44% today.
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election (https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election)
Not a bad wager considering the need for travel, apartment deposit, and an emigration lawyer if he wins.
Or, inexplicably, you could toss your money towards a laundry list of people who have no delegates whatsoever, including Mark Zuckerberg and Tusli Gabbard. It's kind of bizarre that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (both of whom actually have deligates and were in the primary) are equal to the libertarian Jo Jorgenson and the retired Republican Paul Ryan.
The rationale is that you can become president with no delegates if you’re selected as VP and your running mate dies?
-
Trump’s odds in this particular betting market are 44% today.
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election (https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election)
Not a bad wager considering the need for travel, apartment deposit, and an emigration lawyer if he wins.
Or, inexplicably, you could toss your money towards a laundry list of people who have no delegates whatsoever, including Mark Zuckerberg and Tusli Gabbard. It's kind of bizarre that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (both of whom actually have deligates and were in the primary) are equal to the libertarian Jo Jorgenson and the retired Republican Paul Ryan.
The rationale is that you can become president with no delegates if you’re selected as VP and your running mate dies?
The rationale is that masses are stupid when it comes to placing bets. I'm trying to come up with a way where Mark Zuckerberg or Jo Jorgenson wind up president, given that (IMO) they will definitely not be the running mate of BIden or Trump.
-
Trump’s odds in this particular betting market are 44% today.
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election (https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election)
Not a bad wager considering the need for travel, apartment deposit, and an emigration lawyer if he wins.
Or, inexplicably, you could toss your money towards a laundry list of people who have no delegates whatsoever, including Mark Zuckerberg and Tusli Gabbard. It's kind of bizarre that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (both of whom actually have deligates and were in the primary) are equal to the libertarian Jo Jorgenson and the retired Republican Paul Ryan.
The rationale is that you can become president with no delegates if you’re selected as VP and your running mate dies?
The rationale is that masses are stupid when it comes to placing bets. I'm trying to come up with a way where Mark Zuckerberg or Jo Jorgenson wind up president, given that (IMO) they will definitely not be the running mate of BIden or Trump.
Well yeah, definitely that. I was just trying to serve you up with a plausible thought process of the type of person who would place that bet: drawn to conspiracy theories and has a hard time understanding the difference between technically possible and 1% probable. It also escaped their notice that the betting site is happy to take bets for those harebrained options but will not take bets against them.
(As for a Trump-Zuckerberg ticket, apparently there’s been billboards advertising exactly this somewhere in Utah!
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-zuckerberg-2020-might-well-says-democrat-upset-false-ads-n1089986 )
-
Trump’s odds in this particular betting market are 44% today.
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election (https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election)
Not a bad wager considering the need for travel, apartment deposit, and an emigration lawyer if he wins.
Or, inexplicably, you could toss your money towards a laundry list of people who have no delegates whatsoever, including Mark Zuckerberg and Tusli Gabbard. It's kind of bizarre that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (both of whom actually have deligates and were in the primary) are equal to the libertarian Jo Jorgenson and the retired Republican Paul Ryan.
The rationale is that you can become president with no delegates if you’re selected as VP and your running mate dies?
The rationale is that masses are stupid when it comes to placing bets. I'm trying to come up with a way where Mark Zuckerberg or Jo Jorgenson wind up president, given that (IMO) they will definitely not be the running mate of BIden or Trump.
This. There is a prop bet on the outcome of the coin flip for the Super Bowl for crying out loud.
-
I feel like Biden could select Zuckerberg as his running mate and destroy everything. Historians would look back at it the way they look back at Chamberlain caving to Germany to try to win "Peace in our time".
-
I feel like Biden could select Zuckerberg as his running mate and destroy everything. Historians would look back at it the way they look back at Chamberlain caving to Germany to try to win "Peace in our time".
Maybe? And then he dies before November? Seems like a stretch. I hope Biden has advisors that would tell him that wood be a phenomenally bad choice.
-
I feel like Biden could select Zuckerberg as his running mate and destroy everything. Historians would look back at it the way they look back at Chamberlain caving to Germany to try to win "Peace in our time".
Maybe? And then he dies before November? Seems like a stretch. I hope Biden has advisors that would tell him that wood be a phenomenally bad choice.
Some of these seemingly weird bets may be more rational than they first appear considering that either Biden or Trump could be dead or incapacitated a week from now due to COVID-19. They’re both in their 70s. Trump is the more vulnerable candidate I think due to his behavior. Biden’s campaign from home strategy is clearly an attempt to survive until the election. In truth, both old men probably share physical space with at least 30-50 people per day.
If either candidate was put out of the running, with no time for primaries or party workings, who knows what the ballot could look like in November?! The odds of both candidates being incapacitated used to be very unlikely but have risen dramatically in the pandemic. Sanders vs. Pence? Warren vs. Romney? Can’t rule it out!
-
I think you can rule out Romney. Today's Republican party wouldn't nominate him.
It's too bad because I voted against him when I had the chance. In 2012, I truly believed that the central issue was the Affordable Care Act, and I thought it should be given a chance to prove itself. I was living in Ohio at the time, and I cast my pivotal vote for Obama. If you had told me that Obama's second term would put in motion a sequence of events that culminated with Trump being President, of course I would have voted for Romney instead. But how could any of us have predicted?
-
If you had told me that Obama's second term would put in motion a sequence of events that culminated with Trump being President, of course I would have voted for Romney instead. But how could any of us have predicted?
If you are blaming Obama for Trump's rise to power, then you are not placing the blame where it belongs (on the party / people who voted for him and the institutions that manipulated them into doing so). And if you did know in advance that re-electing Obama would "lead" to Trump, and you voted for Romney because of it, they you would simply be rewarding bad behavior.
-
I think you can rule out Romney. Today's Republican party wouldn't nominate him.
The nomination process is over, so the bets are on something else.
Suppose Trump gets the COVID in August and either dies or is incapacitated with a 30% approval rating. Many close allies also disappear for a month. It would be unlikely that someone would not exploit the opening to say, “look the only way we have a chance in this election is a last minute switch to a Romney/Rubio (or choose your own) ticket. We can drop all the baggage of the crippled Trump administration and throw off the Dems’ attack strategy in one strategic swoop.” A two week war ensues inside the party and then the more powerful side prevails. The legal basis is that the nominee was unable to perform so the party switched to another.
-
Suppose Trump gets the COVID in August and either dies or is incapacitated with a 30% approval rating. Many close allies also disappear for a month. It would be unlikely that someone would not exploit the opening to say, “look the only way we have a chance in this election is a last minute switch to a Romney/Rubio (or choose your own) ticket. We can drop all the baggage of the crippled Trump administration and throw off the Dems’ attack strategy in one strategic swoop.” A two week war ensues inside the party and then the more powerful side prevails. The legal basis is that the nominee was unable to perform so the party switched to another.
What's weird is that this seems like a decent (albeit improbable) scenario rather than some dystopian political nightmare.
-
https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2020/06/Fox_June-20-23-2020_Complete_Texas_Topline_June-25-Release.pdf
Fox News poll:
-Biden 45%
-Trump 44%
-
I don't have a very good read of the Trump supporters. If something strange keeps him from making it to the November election as a candidate, will they stage protests that are the equivalent of what was happening in Michigan and Wisconsin in early May, claiming that it's a protest against the "Deep State"?
-
I don't have a very good read of the Trump supporters. If something strange keeps him from making it to the November election as a candidate, will they stage protests that are the equivalent of what was happening in Michigan and Wisconsin in early May, claiming that it's a protest against the "Deep State"?
In other words: “would they vote for Pence”?
-
Go to Breitbart every day for a week. One of the remarkable things I learned from when I did (this was in 2017) was how mistrustful Trump's base are of Mike Pence. To them, he's just a few shades better than Paul Ryan.
-
Go to Breitbart every day for a week. One of the remarkable things I learned from when I did (this was in 2017) was how mistrustful Trump's base are of Mike Pence. To them, he's just a few shades better than Paul Ryan.
Interesting.
I get that Pence was a strategic choice to lock down the evangelical vote and those who hold "conservative christian values' (to put it euphamistically) in terms of marriage, religion, sex, family and language.... probably necessary since Trump was a thrice-married adulterer with a potty-mouth and questionable devotion to God.
I've been amazed at the degree which Pence has prostrated himself for the good of Trump/POTUS (e.g. being sent out to lie only to be undercut by Trump, being ordered to attend and then walk out on an NFL game). What I hadn't realized was the low feelings many on Team Trump still harbor towards Pence.
It's sad, really. I have big problems with Pence's view of the world, but here he's tossed much of that out the window to be Trump's lacky, doormat and defender to a degree I never thought possible, and yet he's still despised by Trump supporters? Ouch.
-
Pence probably had the same insight I did (these people are only luke-warm on him), which is why he's been so obsequious.
I think he saw the role as giving him perhaps a 30% chance of becoming President. He still may get to be one if Trump loses in Nov., immediately resigning so that Pence can pre-empt any legal issues by pardoning him.
-
Pence probably had the same insight I did (these people are only luke-warm on him), which is why he's been so obsequious.
I think he saw the role as giving him perhaps a 30% chance of becoming President. He still may get to be one if Trump loses in Nov., immediately resigning so that Pence can pre-empt any legal issues by pardoning him.
Would he, though?
I find the scenario unlikely (perhaps we can revisit mid-November. But imagine Trump *does* lose and then he *does* resign with instructions for Pence to give him an absolute pardon. With Trump no longer holding power... why would Pence do what he asks? Maybe extortion (Pence probably has done/heard/known things working for this campaign that he'd like no one to know about). But beyond that... why cement his legacy in history as a 2-mponth president who pardoned someone who so obviously refutes all that he says he holds near and dear to his heart?
Maybe, instead of following Trump's orders he decides to screw-Trump/redeem himself Pence decides instead to authorize the release of transcripts, tax records, testimony.
Put another way: Don't be surprised when the dog you've spent your whole life kicking suddenly bites you when you are vulnerable.
-
Pence probably had the same insight I did (these people are only luke-warm on him), which is why he's been so obsequious.
I think he saw the role as giving him perhaps a 30% chance of becoming President. He still may get to be one if Trump loses in Nov., immediately resigning so that Pence can pre-empt any legal issues by pardoning him.
Would he, though?
I find the scenario unlikely (perhaps we can revisit mid-November. But imagine Trump *does* lose and then he *does* resign with instructions for Pence to give him an absolute pardon. With Trump no longer holding power... why would Pence do what he asks? Maybe extortion (Pence probably has done/heard/known things working for this campaign that he'd like no one to know about). But beyond that... why cement his legacy in history as a 2-mponth president who pardoned someone who so obviously refutes all that he says he holds near and dear to his heart?
Maybe, instead of following Trump's orders he decides to screw-Trump/redeem himself Pence decides instead to authorize the release of transcripts, tax records, testimony.
Put another way: Don't be surprised when the dog you've spent your whole life kicking suddenly bites you when you are vulnerable.
Why did Ford pardon Nixon? What about "Trump is vastly popular with Republicans and Pence isn't" makes you think that Pence would betray his entire potential voting base just to suddenly discover a conscience?
-
Why did Ford pardon Nixon? What about "Trump is vastly popular with Republicans and Pence isn't" makes you think that Pence would betray his entire potential voting base just to suddenly discover a conscience?
When Ford pardoned Nixon he had more than two years to govern as President and was eligible to run for election (which he ultimatrely did). In this hypothetical Pence would have about two months (or less) before his term was up, and as a post-election lame duck he would not be able to run for election. In fact, regardless of what he did he would be out of politics entirely on January 20th.
I just don't see the benefit for Pence to issue a pardon. As Ford learned, issuing a pardon can hurt future campaigns. And what would his life in politics even be? He's never been a strong sell for to be the GOP standardbearer. He could run for his old House seat... but that's currently held by his brother (awkward!). The next Indiana Senator race is in 2022 against a fellow GOP (Braun). He's no longer eligible to be state Governor, having served his time.
In short - when evaluating whether a politician *will* do something (i.e. "issue a pardon of Trump") I look at how this would benefit him, and how NOT doing it would hurt him. I don't see how it would help him, and I can see how it could harm him.
-
Why did Ford pardon Nixon? What about "Trump is vastly popular with Republicans and Pence isn't" makes you think that Pence would betray his entire potential voting base just to suddenly discover a conscience?
When Ford pardoned Nixon he had more than two years to govern as President and was eligible to run for election (which he ultimatrely did). In this hypothetical Pence would have about two months (or less) before his term was up, and as a post-election lame duck he would not be able to run for election. In fact, regardless of what he did he would be out of politics entirely on January 20th.
I just don't see the benefit for Pence to issue a pardon. As Ford learned, issuing a pardon can hurt future campaigns. And what would his life in politics even be? He's never been a strong sell for to be the GOP standardbearer. He could run for his old House seat... but that's currently held by his brother (awkward!). The next Indiana Senator race is in 2022 against a fellow GOP (Braun). He's no longer eligible to be state Governor, having served his time.
In short - when evaluating whether a politician *will* do something (i.e. "issue a pardon of Trump") I look at how this would benefit him, and how NOT doing it would hurt him. I don't see how it would help him, and I can see how it could harm him.
Okay, so then let me lay this possible situation down.
1) Pence pardons Trump, and he and all Republican leaders double down even harder on the "witch hunt" "fake news" "most unfairly treated president ever" "deep state" narrative.
2) Biden has obviously already won 2020 in this scenario, but he has already said that he will be a 1-term president, and he spends the next 4 years trying to undo some of the damage that COVID-19, the Republican tax-cut deficit, and the Fed helicopter money have done. So they're not 4 "great" years. Republicans in congress rest easy as they can now revert back to their default mode of obstruct-everything and scream about the deficit that they created (instead of actually, you know, governing), generally making it hard for anything of substance to be done.
3) Trump meanwhile goes on to found the Trump News Corp now that he no longer has to be president, which is really what he wanted to do from the start. He keeps on Trumpin', and all the other right-wing news orgs are forced to match his tone and rhetoric or else he'll steal all their customers.
4) 2024 rolls around, and Trump is still the most popular president amongst the Republican base in history, and as such still controls the voting base and as such still has a completely stranglehold on every single Republican politician. Trump, having no desire to actually be president again, actually keeps his back-room promise to Pence (I know, this is probably the most unrealistic part) and sets him to be the R nominee. Queue the normal "judges" and "tax cuts" and "family values" rhetoric and the Republican EC advantage, and he stands a decent chance against whoever the D nominee is once he wins the nomination.
Is that really that unrealistic? That seems to me to be his one chance at actually being a real president. On the other hand, how would betraying Trump benefit Pence?
-
Why did Ford pardon Nixon? What about "Trump is vastly popular with Republicans and Pence isn't" makes you think that Pence would betray his entire potential voting base just to suddenly discover a conscience?
When Ford pardoned Nixon he had more than two years to govern as President and was eligible to run for election (which he ultimatrely did). In this hypothetical Pence would have about two months (or less) before his term was up, and as a post-election lame duck he would not be able to run for election. In fact, regardless of what he did he would be out of politics entirely on January 20th.
I just don't see the benefit for Pence to issue a pardon. As Ford learned, issuing a pardon can hurt future campaigns. And what would his life in politics even be? He's never been a strong sell for to be the GOP standardbearer. He could run for his old House seat... but that's currently held by his brother (awkward!). The next Indiana Senator race is in 2022 against a fellow GOP (Braun). He's no longer eligible to be state Governor, having served his time.
In short - when evaluating whether a politician *will* do something (i.e. "issue a pardon of Trump") I look at how this would benefit him, and how NOT doing it would hurt him. I don't see how it would help him, and I can see how it could harm him.
Okay, so then let me lay this possible situation down.
1) Pence pardons Trump, and he and all Republican leaders double down even harder on the "witch hunt" "fake news" "most unfairly treated president ever" "deep state" narrative.
2) Biden has obviously already won 2020 in this scenario, but he has already said that he will be a 1-term president, and he spends the next 4 years trying to undo some of the damage that COVID-19, the Republican tax-cut deficit, and the Fed helicopter money have done. So they're not 4 "great" years. Republicans in congress rest easy as they can now revert back to their default mode of obstruct-everything and scream about the deficit that they created (instead of actually, you know, governing), generally making it hard for anything of substance to be done.
3) Trump meanwhile goes on to found the Trump News Corp now that he no longer has to be president, which is really what he wanted to do from the start. He keeps on Trumpin', and all the other right-wing news orgs are forced to match his tone and rhetoric or else he'll steal all their customers.
4) 2024 rolls around, and Trump is still the most popular president amongst the Republican base in history, and as such still controls the voting base and as such still has a completely stranglehold on every single Republican politician. Trump, having no desire to actually be president again, actually keeps his back-room promise to Pence (I know, this is probably the most unrealistic part) and sets him to be the R nominee. Queue the normal "judges" and "tax cuts" and "family values" rhetoric and the Republican EC advantage, and he stands a decent chance against whoever the D nominee is once he wins the nomination.
Is that really that unrealistic? That seems to me to be his one chance at actually being a real president. On the other hand, how would betraying Trump benefit Pence?
I think the bolded portion of #4 is what I find least likely. IF Trump loses, he will have been a one-term president who squandered 2 years of complete governmental control and he will be blamed for downballot races from formerly strong GOP members. As the saying goes, Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan. Additionally, many of Trump's supporters do so because he has this image of being a winner, and being invulnerable. He says and does whatever he wants, and all the attacks on him don't matter because he's "Teflon Don." The second he loses that image is shattered. He's now a loser - the absolute worst thing he can be according to him. Pence will have similar problems - after an absolute pardon of Trump he'll be seen by a majority of the electorate negatively. With Dems controlling the WH and House and (very possibly with a Trump lost) the Senate there will be a level of scrutiny on the previous administration which we haven't had yet. They're going to use it to make Trump/Pence look bad *even though Trump will be immune*. They want to make sure that every sitting GOP senator is forever tied to Trump's misdeeds, and to a large extent that will extend to Pence.
I also see no reason why Trump would honor a back-door pledge to Pence, given how many times he's publicly burned even loyal supporters when they cease to become useful to him. As former president Pence is called to testify and confirms all these negative things about Trump, he'll do what he always does, and go ballistic on him. See Cohen or Tillerson or Sessions or Ryan or Mattis or...
-
I think the bolded portion of #4 is what I find least likely. IF Trump loses, he will have been a one-term president who squandered 2 years of complete governmental control and he will be blamed for downballot races from formerly strong GOP members. As the saying goes, Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan. Additionally, many of Trump's supporters do so because he has this image of being a winner, and being invulnerable. He says and does whatever he wants, and all the attacks on him don't matter because he's "Teflon Don." The second he loses that image is shattered. He's now a loser - the absolute worst thing he can be according to him. Pence will have similar problems - after an absolute pardon of Trump he'll be seen by a majority of the electorate negatively.
This argument I'm sympathetic to, as I think it could indeed go that way. But Trump is very actively laying the groundwork for disbelieving the results of the election, because "millions of illegals mailed in ballots" or something. The fact that it has absolutely no basis in reality hasn't mattered yet, so why would it start? And further I don't think they love him because he's "Teflon Don", I think they love him because he acts the way they wish that they could act. The fact that he's "Teflon Don" and gets away with it is part of that, but not necessarily a foundational piece. If he experiences zero real consequences for his actions then he still is getting away with it, despite haven lost a "fake election".
With Dems controlling the WH and House and (very possibly with a Trump lost) the Senate there will be a level of scrutiny on the previous administration which we haven't had yet. They're going to use it to make Trump/Pence look bad *even though Trump will be immune*. They want to make sure that every sitting GOP senator is forever tied to Trump's misdeeds, and to a large extent that will extend to Pence.
Will they? Or will Biden try to "help the nation heal" by "looking forward and not back"? And anyway Fox News / Trump News Corp will keep on saying that it's all a fake witch hunt by the deep state to discredit the best president ever. Who are Republicans going to believe?
I also see no reason why Trump would honor a back-door pledge to Pence, given how many times he's publicly burned even loyal supporters when they cease to become useful to him. As former president Pence is called to testify and confirms all these negative things about Trump, he'll do what he always does, and go ballistic on him. See Cohen or Tillerson or Sessions or Ryan or Mattis or...
See here I flat-out disagree. Trump turns on his loyal supporters the instant they tell him "no" on even the smallest thing, not when they are no longer useful.
Cohen when faced with jail time for his own misdeeds decided to cooperate with the investigation. Tillerson disagreed about pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal. Sessions recused himself from the Mueller investigation. Ryan spoke out against Trumps rhetoric. Mattis resigned in protest over the abandonment of our Kurdish allies. Etc for every other example.
It's not that they're no longer useful, it's that they disagree with Trump about something, which in Trump's mind makes them no longer loyal. As long as Pence stays whipped-dog boot-licking loyal he has nothing to fear.
And you didn't answer my question (or I missed it). What benefit does Pence gain in betraying Trump? I don't think "history" is going to look too kindly on him either way, so it has to be something more than that.
-
I think the bolded portion of #4 is what I find least likely. IF Trump loses, he will have been a one-term president who squandered 2 years of complete governmental control and he will be blamed for downballot races from formerly strong GOP members. As the saying goes, Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan. Additionally, many of Trump's supporters do so because he has this image of being a winner, and being invulnerable. He says and does whatever he wants, and all the attacks on him don't matter because he's "Teflon Don." The second he loses that image is shattered. He's now a loser - the absolute worst thing he can be according to him. Pence will have similar problems - after an absolute pardon of Trump he'll be seen by a majority of the electorate negatively.
This argument I'm sympathetic to, as I think it could indeed go that way. But Trump is very actively laying the groundwork for disbelieving the results of the election, because "millions of illegals mailed in ballots" or something. The fact that it has absolutely no basis in reality hasn't mattered yet, so why would it start? And further I don't think they love him because he's "Teflon Don", I think they love him because he acts the way they wish that they could act. The fact that he's "Teflon Don" and gets away with it is part of that, but not necessarily a foundational piece. If he experiences zero real consequences for his actions then he still is getting away with it, despite haven lost a "fake election".
Well there's a non-zero chance we'll get to see how this plays out after November. My prediction is that Trump won't resign. If he does I still find it doubtful Pence will issue him a pardon. Perhaps we'll see in 5-6 months.
As for why people stick with him - I think his popularity is largely based on his brand, which is (to a large degree) his public image. People may love him because he acts the way they wish they could act, but if he loses re-election (i.e. "He's Fired!") that IS the real consequence. That and almost certain continued public investigations, court losses, more unflattering accounts of him as a leader. Oh, and his businesses are floundering in large part because of his presidency.
Also, I wouldn't count the Murdochs out and assume TrumpNews® will suddenly dominate the conservative mediasphere. There might be a bidding war for talent and eyeballs, but FoxNews has been at this for a long time and is well positioned to keep their marketshare. They've also got very deep pockets, and it's unclear how much capital Trump really has to start his own large-scale media corp. Trump hasn't managed to
Yes, Trump turns on his most loyal supporters the moment they say 'no' - but you still haven't answered the question of why President Pence should continue to do Trump's bidding when there's no clear political motive for him to do so.
-
But you still haven't answered the question of why President Pence should continue to do Trump's bidding when there's no clear political motive for him to do so.
I did; it's because that's Pence's only plausible path to being elected president. You just disagree that it's particularly plausible, but it's not like there's a more plausible path out there for him if he betrays Trump.
-
^ I haven't followed this whole thread, but Trump's base is incredibly loyal. If Pence acts like Trump's lap dog, maybe Pence can mobile that base again in some future election. And hey, Trump got elected once.
-
Why did Ford pardon Nixon? What about "Trump is vastly popular with Republicans and Pence isn't" makes you think that Pence would betray his entire potential voting base just to suddenly discover a conscience?
When Ford pardoned Nixon he had more than two years to govern as President and was eligible to run for election (which he ultimatrely did). In this hypothetical Pence would have about two months (or less) before his term was up, and as a post-election lame duck he would not be able to run for election. In fact, regardless of what he did he would be out of politics entirely on January 20th.
I just don't see the benefit for Pence to issue a pardon. As Ford learned, issuing a pardon can hurt future campaigns. And what would his life in politics even be? He's never been a strong sell for to be the GOP standardbearer. He could run for his old House seat... but that's currently held by his brother (awkward!). The next Indiana Senator race is in 2022 against a fellow GOP (Braun). He's no longer eligible to be state Governor, having served his time.
In short - when evaluating whether a politician *will* do something (i.e. "issue a pardon of Trump") I look at how this would benefit him, and how NOT doing it would hurt him. I don't see how it would help him, and I can see how it could harm him.
Ford was facing a very serious challenge for the GOP nomination in 1976. Ronald Reagan almost beat him. I'm sure the pardon was part of that calculus.
I don't know what future career in politics Pence is considering. I feel like Pompeo is the more brazenly ambitious of the pair, and the libertarians (think Koch network) like him more. Pence would have a hard time beating Pompeo or Nikki Haley in the 2024 primary. Haley was much more popular within SC than Pence was in Indiana.
-
Ford was facing a very serious challenge for the GOP nomination in 1976. Ronald Reagan almost beat him. I'm sure the pardon was part of that calculus.
I don't know what future career in politics Pence is considering. I feel like Pompeo is the more brazenly ambitious of the pair, and the libertarians (think Koch network) like him more. Pence would have a hard time beating Pompeo or Nikki Haley in the 2024 primary. Haley was much more popular within SC than Pence was in Indiana.
I tend to agree. Pence seems like a distant competitor for the GOP nominee sweepstakes. I'd toss Rubio and the Trump children in with Pompeo and Haley as more likely to lead the 2024 ticket, and frankly I just don't see Pence as ambitious enough to seriously run.
If I had to guess I think Pence will look at the options available to him and conclude that "retirement"* is his best option.
*and by "retirement" I mean he'll serve on a number of conservative boards and give speeches at fundraisers much as he does in his current capacity as VP, only he'll be paid substantially more than his current $235k.
-
I don't want to criticize that conception of "retirement" because it seems that another Vice President--Joe Biden--has been enjoying a very similar retirement to that from 2017-2019.
-
It seems likely that if Trump loses in 2020, all bets are off as to what the Republican party does. It's absolutely been imploding for quite some time, since the Tea Party movement and Trump splitting the party as well. It certainly feels like Trump losing in 2020 results in a dramatically changed Republican party. It feels inevitable to fall apart in either 2020 (with a Trump loss) or 2024 (if Trump wins).
I am more curious what happens to the Democratic party if the Republican party implodes. One thing Trump is masterful at is dominating the narrative to be about him, even from the Democrat side, it makes me wonder a bit what the Democratic party will do if they don't have the "not Trump" thing going for them. There's definitely fractures in that party too but a categorical dislike of Trump is a strong reason to hold it together. Without Trump (or any Republican in a similarly, uh, let's say controversial spot) I'm curious whether it'll stay a cohesive party.
Add in all the covid related problems for the rest of this year leading into 2020's election are certainly going to be interesting.
-
I don't want to criticize that conception of "retirement" because it seems that another Vice President--Joe Biden--has been enjoying a very similar retirement to that from 2017-2019.
I was trying not to provide judgement on that kind of politicla 'retirement'. I accept that most executives, be they governors, prez/VP or CEOs, often work as fundraisers/motivational speakers/consultants and earn a substantial amount for doing so.
-
It seems likely that if Trump loses in 2020, all bets are off as to what the Republican party does. It's absolutely been imploding for quite some time, since the Tea Party movement and Trump splitting the party as well. It certainly feels like Trump losing in 2020 results in a dramatically changed Republican party. It feels inevitable to fall apart in either 2020 (with a Trump loss) or 2024 (if Trump wins).
I'm not sure about that, tbh. I mean, yes, Trump is a disaster for them in some ways. But the thing is, he definitely has galvanized voters in a remarkable way, and made them incredibly loyal to him. I'd argue that his particular pathological narcissism has allowed him to stumble across a winning formula. He's just bad at it (no impulse control, actually not smart or competent or qualified, more of an idiot savant).
My gut feeling is that the Republican party, once they pick themselves up and brush themselves off (assuming a Trump defeat, which I still don't want to think of as a given), will take the following lesson: do what he did, but just better. Less stupidly. Just as brazenly lying with a straight face, just as blatantly ignoring the Constitution, but just doing it with a little more finesse, and maybe not quite so much literal palling around with dictators of hostile nations. That could be a winning formula for them in 2024.
When GWBush was elected, I thought, "These Republican nominees just keep getting worse lately. Wow, wonder how the next one could be worse." (Arguably, McCain and Romney were better, but they didn't win, now did they?) Now, since Trump has been in office, I have been wondering the same thing about the next GOP nominee. My verdict: As corrupt as Trump, but much cleverer.
-
It seems likely that if Trump loses in 2020, all bets are off as to what the Republican party does. It's absolutely been imploding for quite some time, since the Tea Party movement and Trump splitting the party as well. It certainly feels like Trump losing in 2020 results in a dramatically changed Republican party. It feels inevitable to fall apart in either 2020 (with a Trump loss) or 2024 (if Trump wins).
I'm not sure about that, tbh. I mean, yes, Trump is a disaster for them in some ways. But the thing is, he definitely has galvanized voters in a remarkable way, and made them incredibly loyal to him. I'd argue that his particular pathological narcissism has allowed him to stumble across a winning formula. He's just bad at it (no impulse control, actually not smart or competent or qualified, more of an idiot savant).
My gut feeling is that the Republican party, once they pick themselves up and brush themselves off (assuming a Trump defeat, which I still don't want to think of as a given), will take the following lesson: do what he did, but just better. Less stupidly. Just as brazenly lying with a straight face, just as blatantly ignoring the Constitution, but just doing it with a little more finesse, and maybe not quite so much literal palling around with dictators of hostile nations. That could be a winning formula for them in 2024.
When GWBush was elected, I thought, "These Republican nominees just keep getting worse lately. Wow, wonder how the next one could be worse." Now, since Trump has been in office, I have been wondering the same thing about the next GOP nominee. My verdict: As corrupt as Trump, but much cleverer.
To me, the biggest challenge the GOP will face in the decades ahead will be the changing demographics of our country. We continue to be less white, more educated and (a bit counterintuitively) younger. None of those play well for their current identity. Until Covid we were also becoming far more urban/less rural; it will be interesting to see how that might change (and whether it will be picked up in the ongoing Census which decides districts for the decade to come).
It will be much harder to convert today's 20-30 somethjings into the GOP as has happened with previous generations. Political science shows once you get into your 40s it's increasingly unlikely that you change political affiliations.
-
It seems likely that if Trump loses in 2020, all bets are off as to what the Republican party does. It's absolutely been imploding for quite some time, since the Tea Party movement and Trump splitting the party as well. It certainly feels like Trump losing in 2020 results in a dramatically changed Republican party. It feels inevitable to fall apart in either 2020 (with a Trump loss) or 2024 (if Trump wins).
I'm not sure about that, tbh. I mean, yes, Trump is a disaster for them in some ways. But the thing is, he definitely has galvanized voters in a remarkable way, and made them incredibly loyal to him. I'd argue that his particular pathological narcissism has allowed him to stumble across a winning formula. He's just bad at it (no impulse control, actually not smart or competent or qualified, more of an idiot savant).
My gut feeling is that the Republican party, once they pick themselves up and brush themselves off (assuming a Trump defeat, which I still don't want to think of as a given), will take the following lesson: do what he did, but just better. Less stupidly. Just as brazenly lying with a straight face, just as blatantly ignoring the Constitution, but just doing it with a little more finesse, and maybe not quite so much literal palling around with dictators of hostile nations. That could be a winning formula for them in 2024.
When GWBush was elected, I thought, "These Republican nominees just keep getting worse lately. Wow, wonder how the next one could be worse." Now, since Trump has been in office, I have been wondering the same thing about the next GOP nominee. My verdict: As corrupt as Trump, but much cleverer.
To me, the biggest challenge the GOP will face in the decades ahead will be the changing demographics of our country. We continue to be less white, more educated and (a bit counterintuitively) younger. None of those play well for their current identity. Until Covid we were also becoming far more urban/less rural; it will be interesting to see how that might change (and whether it will be picked up in the ongoing Census which decides districts for the decade to come).
It will be much harder to convert today's 20-30 somethjings into the GOP as has happened with previous generations. Political science shows once you get into your 40s it's increasingly unlikely that you change political affiliations.
Yes, very true. But everything hinges on whether those people vote, or whether they become disaffected. Trump's supporters vote.
-
It seems likely that if Trump loses in 2020, all bets are off as to what the Republican party does. It's absolutely been imploding for quite some time, since the Tea Party movement and Trump splitting the party as well. It certainly feels like Trump losing in 2020 results in a dramatically changed Republican party. It feels inevitable to fall apart in either 2020 (with a Trump loss) or 2024 (if Trump wins).
I'm not sure about that, tbh. I mean, yes, Trump is a disaster for them in some ways. But the thing is, he definitely has galvanized voters in a remarkable way, and made them incredibly loyal to him. I'd argue that his particular pathological narcissism has allowed him to stumble across a winning formula. He's just bad at it (no impulse control, actually not smart or competent or qualified, more of an idiot savant).
My gut feeling is that the Republican party, once they pick themselves up and brush themselves off (assuming a Trump defeat, which I still don't want to think of as a given), will take the following lesson: do what he did, but just better. Less stupidly. Just as brazenly lying with a straight face, just as blatantly ignoring the Constitution, but just doing it with a little more finesse, and maybe not quite so much literal palling around with dictators of hostile nations. That could be a winning formula for them in 2024.
When GWBush was elected, I thought, "These Republican nominees just keep getting worse lately. Wow, wonder how the next one could be worse." Now, since Trump has been in office, I have been wondering the same thing about the next GOP nominee. My verdict: As corrupt as Trump, but much cleverer.
To me, the biggest challenge the GOP will face in the decades ahead will be the changing demographics of our country. We continue to be less white, more educated and (a bit counterintuitively) younger. None of those play well for their current identity. Until Covid we were also becoming far more urban/less rural; it will be interesting to see how that might change (and whether it will be picked up in the ongoing Census which decides districts for the decade to come).
It will be much harder to convert today's 20-30 somethjings into the GOP as has happened with previous generations. Political science shows once you get into your 40s it's increasingly unlikely that you change political affiliations.
Yes, very true. But everything hinges on whether those people vote, or whether they become disaffected. Trump's supporters vote.
Do they? More so than people voting for the other candidate/against Trump
We have an n=1 when voting directly for Trump.
Midterm and special elections haven't supported the idea that Trump voters are more loyal than the opposition. There have been a laundry-list of Trump-Approved® candidates who failed to win primaries and special elections in the last two years.
I guess we'll know a lot more in late November.
-
To me, the biggest challenge the GOP will face in the decades ahead will be the changing demographics of our country. We continue to be less white, more educated and (a bit counterintuitively) younger. None of those play well for their current identity. Until Covid we were also becoming far more urban/less rural; it will be interesting to see how that might change (and whether it will be picked up in the ongoing Census which decides districts for the decade to come).
It will be much harder to convert today's 20-30 somethjings into the GOP as has happened with previous generations. Political science shows once you get into your 40s it's increasingly unlikely that you change political affiliations.
Yup.
This is a big factor. I'd be very curious to somehow see the strength of Trump support by age (and the age demographics of those who hate Trump). Nearly everyone I know who is younger who voted for Trump did so very begrudgingly while those who are 50+ all did so happily.
And then compare this to some of the prior Republican presidents like Bush (or even the McCain/Romney campaigns).
Trump's douchebaggery alienates a lot of people who might otherwise vote Republican in my circles, but I'm younger. And it obviously invigorates others - or at least convinces Republican leaning folks to vote.
@Kris I think I'm perhaps naively optimistic around what percentage of the Republican party is happy about Trump's narcissism/formula. I hope that if/when he loses in 2020, that will put an end to his particular brand being viable within politics in the USA
-
Trump is really popular with registered republicans. like 90%+ approval. Don't kid yourself, republicans may publicly say they don't like what is going on at dinner parties, but privately they love what he's doing.
-
Trump is really popular with registered republicans. like 90%+ approval. Don't kid yourself, republicans may publicly say they don't like what is going on at dinner parties, but privately they love what he's doing.
If only registered Republicans voted for Republican, Trump would have a 0% chance of winning.
Less than 30% of Americans are registered Republicans (less than independent or Democrats).
Not all Trump voters were registered as Republicans. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/28/first-time-ever-there-are-fewer-registered-republicans-than-independents/
-
It seems likely that if Trump loses in 2020, all bets are off as to what the Republican party does. It's absolutely been imploding for quite some time, since the Tea Party movement and Trump splitting the party as well. It certainly feels like Trump losing in 2020 results in a dramatically changed Republican party. It feels inevitable to fall apart in either 2020 (with a Trump loss) or 2024 (if Trump wins).
I'm not sure about that, tbh. I mean, yes, Trump is a disaster for them in some ways. But the thing is, he definitely has galvanized voters in a remarkable way, and made them incredibly loyal to him. I'd argue that his particular pathological narcissism has allowed him to stumble across a winning formula. He's just bad at it (no impulse control, actually not smart or competent or qualified, more of an idiot savant).
My gut feeling is that the Republican party, once they pick themselves up and brush themselves off (assuming a Trump defeat, which I still don't want to think of as a given), will take the following lesson: do what he did, but just better. Less stupidly. Just as brazenly lying with a straight face, just as blatantly ignoring the Constitution, but just doing it with a little more finesse, and maybe not quite so much literal palling around with dictators of hostile nations. That could be a winning formula for them in 2024.
When GWBush was elected, I thought, "These Republican nominees just keep getting worse lately. Wow, wonder how the next one could be worse." Now, since Trump has been in office, I have been wondering the same thing about the next GOP nominee. My verdict: As corrupt as Trump, but much cleverer.
To me, the biggest challenge the GOP will face in the decades ahead will be the changing demographics of our country. We continue to be less white, more educated and (a bit counterintuitively) younger. None of those play well for their current identity. Until Covid we were also becoming far more urban/less rural; it will be interesting to see how that might change (and whether it will be picked up in the ongoing Census which decides districts for the decade to come).
It will be much harder to convert today's 20-30 somethjings into the GOP as has happened with previous generations. Political science shows once you get into your 40s it's increasingly unlikely that you change political affiliations.
Yes, very true. But everything hinges on whether those people vote, or whether they become disaffected. Trump's supporters vote.
It might be that Trump's opponents have their votes suppressed.
-
It seems likely that if Trump loses in 2020, all bets are off as to what the Republican party does. It's absolutely been imploding for quite some time, since the Tea Party movement and Trump splitting the party as well. It certainly feels like Trump losing in 2020 results in a dramatically changed Republican party. It feels inevitable to fall apart in either 2020 (with a Trump loss) or 2024 (if Trump wins).
I'm not sure about that, tbh. I mean, yes, Trump is a disaster for them in some ways. But the thing is, he definitely has galvanized voters in a remarkable way, and made them incredibly loyal to him. I'd argue that his particular pathological narcissism has allowed him to stumble across a winning formula. He's just bad at it (no impulse control, actually not smart or competent or qualified, more of an idiot savant).
My gut feeling is that the Republican party, once they pick themselves up and brush themselves off (assuming a Trump defeat, which I still don't want to think of as a given), will take the following lesson: do what he did, but just better. Less stupidly. Just as brazenly lying with a straight face, just as blatantly ignoring the Constitution, but just doing it with a little more finesse, and maybe not quite so much literal palling around with dictators of hostile nations. That could be a winning formula for them in 2024.
When GWBush was elected, I thought, "These Republican nominees just keep getting worse lately. Wow, wonder how the next one could be worse." Now, since Trump has been in office, I have been wondering the same thing about the next GOP nominee. My verdict: As corrupt as Trump, but much cleverer.
To me, the biggest challenge the GOP will face in the decades ahead will be the changing demographics of our country. We continue to be less white, more educated and (a bit counterintuitively) younger. None of those play well for their current identity. Until Covid we were also becoming far more urban/less rural; it will be interesting to see how that might change (and whether it will be picked up in the ongoing Census which decides districts for the decade to come).
It will be much harder to convert today's 20-30 somethjings into the GOP as has happened with previous generations. Political science shows once you get into your 40s it's increasingly unlikely that you change political affiliations.
Yes, very true. But everything hinges on whether those people vote, or whether they become disaffected. Trump's supporters vote.
It might be that Trump's opponents have their votes suppressed.
Yes, that's another factor. A big one.
-
It seems likely that if Trump loses in 2020, all bets are off as to what the Republican party does. It's absolutely been imploding for quite some time, since the Tea Party movement and Trump splitting the party as well. It certainly feels like Trump losing in 2020 results in a dramatically changed Republican party. It feels inevitable to fall apart in either 2020 (with a Trump loss) or 2024 (if Trump wins).
I am more curious what happens to the Democratic party if the Republican party implodes. One thing Trump is masterful at is dominating the narrative to be about him, even from the Democrat side, it makes me wonder a bit what the Democratic party will do if they don't have the "not Trump" thing going for them. There's definitely fractures in that party too but a categorical dislike of Trump is a strong reason to hold it together. Without Trump (or any Republican in a similarly, uh, let's say controversial spot) I'm curious whether it'll stay a cohesive party.
Add in all the covid related problems for the rest of this year leading into 2020's election are certainly going to be interesting.
The energy from the Tea Party has put two dozen states out of reach of Democratic control, even if the people who live in them are purple. As long as these vast geographies call themselves "Republican", the party will never die, and it will be able to maintain forty seats in the Senate to block whatever they want nationally.
-
Trump is really popular with registered republicans. like 90%+ approval. Don't kid yourself, republicans may publicly say they don't like what is going on at dinner parties, but privately they love what he's doing.
If only registered Republicans voted for Republican, Trump would have a 0% chance of winning.
Less than 30% of Americans are registered Republicans (less than independent or Democrats).
Not all Trump voters were registered as Republicans. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/28/first-time-ever-there-are-fewer-registered-republicans-than-independents/
We've seen this throughout his Presidency. At the very, very beginning he commanded an approval rating in the high 40s as a lot of people were going to give him the benefit of the doubt (for reference he received 46.1% of the total vote to HRC's 48.2%, with Johnson & Stein collectively taking the majority of the remainder). Since then his approval has been dramatically consistent in the 40-42% range. That jives with 90% of registered republicans support along with ~10% of independents and 5% of Dems.
His current support of ~41% is dramatically insufficient to win re-election, and translates to an astounding 8.2MM fewer voters this time around if turnout is roughly the same @56% (in line with the last 4 presidential elections, and on par with elections since the 1970s) and with the expanded electorate.
Since (again) the roll of a 3rd party candidate appears to be small, Trump has to somehow get a larger percentage of people to vote for him than currently support him. It's a really tough road for him - even with additional supression efforts.
-
The energy from the Tea Party has put two dozen states out of reach of Democratic control, even if the people who live in them are purple. As long as these vast geographies call themselves "Republican", the party will never die, and it will be able to maintain forty seats in the Senate to block whatever they want nationally.
40 seats doesn't do what it once did. Reed broached the "nuclear option" and McConnell has fully embraced it. Very little requires more than 50 votes anymore (if you control the WH - 51 if you don't).
Meanwhile committee chairs are still controlled by the majority.
-
With 48 or 49 R chairs, though, there will be tremendous pressure on Red State Dem's to cross over.
-
With 48 or 49 R chairs, though, there will be tremendous pressure on Red State Dem's to cross over.
Sure, it's called compromise, and it's the way divided government is supposed to work.
There will also be pressure on 'Blue/Purple State" Republicans to work with Democrats.
Bottom line, you only need 50 to pass legislation these days, and with Dems almost certainly in control of the House from 2021. the GOP will (as minority parties typically do) block what legislation they can and try to slow all else down to a crawl.