So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[GuitarStv]

You can get away with having a liberal, highly controlled welfare state when you country is only a few million rich homogeneous people; see Scandinavia.

I see this sentiment being expressed quite often.  Can you explain what is the science (political science, if you like) behind the need for a society to be small and homogeneous in order for it to provide a welfare state?  Rich I can understand (although rich is of course relative), but why homogeneous?  The UK was relatively small and very homogeneous when it set up its welfare state and has rapidly become less so on both counts over recent decades but as far as I know neither the growth in size nor the new heterogeneity have caused any problems.

We are in general I think a better governed country (more efficient and less corrupt politicians and public sector) than the USA.  Perhaps that's what you meant?  Or perhaps that there is better economic integration within the regions of the UK than in the USA, which I suppose is in some regards a factor of size.  But where does homogeneity come in?

The people who espouse this view tend to blame most of America's problems on (in no particular order):
- Mexicans
- Immigrants
- Muslims
- Black People

They like to use Scandinavian countries to compare to because they are predominantly white and therefore good, so socialistic sharing works.  Of course, if you have a mixture of the 'problem' races (as in the US) then it won't work. The homogeneity argument is really thinly disguised racism.

[wenchsenior]

You can get away with having a liberal, highly controlled welfare state when you country is only a few million rich homogeneous people; see Scandinavia.

I see this sentiment being expressed quite often.  Can you explain what is the science (political science, if you like) behind the need for a society to be small and homogeneous in order for it to provide a welfare state?  Rich I can understand (although rich is of course relative), but why homogeneous?  The UK was relatively small and very homogeneous when it set up its welfare state and has rapidly become less so on both counts over recent decades but as far as I know neither the growth in size nor the new heterogeneity have caused any problems.

We are in general I think a better governed country (more efficient and less corrupt politicians and public sector) than the USA.  Perhaps that's what you meant?  Or perhaps that there is better economic integration within the regions of the UK than in the USA, which I suppose is in some regards a factor of size.  But where does homogeneity come in?

The people who espouse this view tend to blame most of America's problems on (in no particular order):
- Mexicans
- Immigrants
- Muslims
- Black People

They like to use Scandinavian countries to compare to because they are predominantly white and therefore good, so socialistic sharing works.  Of course, if you have a mixture of the 'problem' races (as in the US) then it won't work. The homogeneity argument is really thinly disguised racism.

I suspect this is often true.  However, I have read summaries of various socio economic studies that indicate the social trust is inversely correlated to diversity of race/religion/etc.  Under 'good' economic conditions, this doesn't matter that much because people don't tend to look for 'other' tribes to blame for societal problems.  However, as we see currently in the U.S., a period of scarcity (or perceived scarcity) will exacerbate the natural human tendency to tribalism and theoretically COULD mean that a gov't based on the (e.g.) Scandinavian style would not function well.

Of course, our current gov't isn't functioning well, either.

[hoping2retire35]

You can get away with having a liberal, highly controlled welfare state when you country is only a few million rich homogeneous people; see Scandinavia.

I see this sentiment being expressed quite often.  Can you explain what is the science (political science, if you like) behind the need for a society to be small and homogeneous in order for it to provide a welfare state?  Rich I can understand (although rich is of course relative), but why homogeneous?  The UK was relatively small and very homogeneous when it set up its welfare state and has rapidly become less so on both counts over recent decades but as far as I know neither the growth in size nor the new heterogeneity have caused any problems.

We are in general I think a better governed country (more efficient and less corrupt politicians and public sector) than the USA.  Perhaps that's what you meant?  Or perhaps that there is better economic integration within the regions of the UK than in the USA, which I suppose is in some regards a factor of size.  But where does homogeneity come in?

The people who espouse this view tend to blame most of America's problems on (in no particular order):
- Mexicans
- Immigrants
- Muslims
- Black People

They like to use Scandinavian countries to compare to because they are predominantly white and therefore good, so socialistic sharing works.  Of course, if you have a mixture of the 'problem' races (as in the US) then it won't work. The homogeneity argument is really thinly disguised racism.

Wrong on both counts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014
This nearly passed. The one below I would say is due to a similar symptom, though I am sure most will say it is something to do with xenophonic Britons, which would be quite scary, if true, considering how many voted in favor of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit

 I would say the bolded is coastal elites versus flyover; it used to be north versus south or city versus rural. Two 'groups' of white people that have a good deal of disdain for one another. The fact that we use 'white' so often is a bit ridiculous. People who look similar, or may not at all for that matter, but somehow that is some big unifying characteristic. A lot of history, culture, ethnicity if you will, much better describes our society.

The UK, OTOH, I would guess has been more unified for a much longer time. I would say the nordic countries can have a better liberal democracy if they are homogeneous, because a super majority of people will have the same self interests, in general. Whereas the US does not.

[Malloy]

You can get away with having a liberal, highly controlled welfare state when you country is only a few million rich homogeneous people; see Scandinavia.

I see this sentiment being expressed quite often.  Can you explain what is the science (political science, if you like) behind the need for a society to be small and homogeneous in order for it to provide a welfare state?  Rich I can understand (although rich is of course relative), but why homogeneous?  The UK was relatively small and very homogeneous when it set up its welfare state and has rapidly become less so on both counts over recent decades but as far as I know neither the growth in size nor the new heterogeneity have caused any problems.

We are in general I think a better governed country (more efficient and less corrupt politicians and public sector) than the USA.  Perhaps that's what you meant?  Or perhaps that there is better economic integration within the regions of the UK than in the USA, which I suppose is in some regards a factor of size.  But where does homogeneity come in?

The people who espouse this view tend to blame most of America's problems on (in no particular order):
- Mexicans
- Immigrants
- Muslims
- Black People

They like to use Scandinavian countries to compare to because they are predominantly white and therefore good, so socialistic sharing works.  Of course, if you have a mixture of the 'problem' races (as in the US) then it won't work. The homogeneity argument is really thinly disguised racism.

I suspect this is often true.  However, I have read summaries of various socio economic studies that indicate the social trust is inversely correlated to diversity of race/religion/etc.  Under 'good' economic conditions, this doesn't matter that much because people don't tend to look for 'other' tribes to blame for societal problems.  However, as we see currently in the U.S., a period of scarcity (or perceived scarcity) will exacerbate the natural human tendency to tribalism and theoretically COULD mean that a gov't based on the (e.g.) Scandinavian style would not function well.

Of course, our current gov't isn't functioning well, either.

Can you explain these examples?  I'm not following.  You mentioned that Scandinavia can be socialist b/c they are homogeneous, and it looks like you gave some examples of how different groups of white people can be non-homogeneous, so you don't mean race.  Is that what you are getting at? 

In any case, I find homogeneity arguments to be absolutely hilarious in the US considering who racists view to be the same (white Christians of all stripes) vs who they used to view as non-people 50 years ago (white Catholics) vs earnest arguments 100 years ago about the wide belief gulfs between Methodists and Presbyterians.  The magic of America is that we all become part of the whole over time.  Out of many, one.  I strongly believe that our model is the best there is.
 

[wenchsenior]

You can get away with having a liberal, highly controlled welfare state when you country is only a few million rich homogeneous people; see Scandinavia.

I see this sentiment being expressed quite often.  Can you explain what is the science (political science, if you like) behind the need for a society to be small and homogeneous in order for it to provide a welfare state?  Rich I can understand (although rich is of course relative), but why homogeneous?  The UK was relatively small and very homogeneous when it set up its welfare state and has rapidly become less so on both counts over recent decades but as far as I know neither the growth in size nor the new heterogeneity have caused any problems.

We are in general I think a better governed country (more efficient and less corrupt politicians and public sector) than the USA.  Perhaps that's what you meant?  Or perhaps that there is better economic integration within the regions of the UK than in the USA, which I suppose is in some regards a factor of size.  But where does homogeneity come in?

The people who espouse this view tend to blame most of America's problems on (in no particular order):
- Mexicans
- Immigrants
- Muslims
- Black People

They like to use Scandinavian countries to compare to because they are predominantly white and therefore good, so socialistic sharing works.  Of course, if you have a mixture of the 'problem' races (as in the US) then it won't work. The homogeneity argument is really thinly disguised racism.

I suspect this is often true.  However, I have read summaries of various socio economic studies that indicate the social trust is inversely correlated to diversity of race/religion/etc.  Under 'good' economic conditions, this doesn't matter that much because people don't tend to look for 'other' tribes to blame for societal problems.  However, as we see currently in the U.S., a period of scarcity (or perceived scarcity) will exacerbate the natural human tendency to tribalism and theoretically COULD mean that a gov't based on the (e.g.) Scandinavian style would not function well.

Of course, our current gov't isn't functioning well, either.

Can you explain these examples?  I'm not following.  You mentioned that Scandinavia can be socialist b/c they are homogeneous, and it looks like you gave some examples of how different groups of white people can be non-homogeneous, so you don't mean race.  Is that what you are getting at? 

In any case, I find homogeneity arguments to be absolutely hilarious in the US considering who racists view to be the same (white Christians of all stripes) vs who they used to view as non-people 50 years ago (white Catholics) vs earnest arguments 100 years ago about the wide belief gulfs between Methodists and Presbyterians.  The magic of America is that we all become part of the whole over time.  Out of many, one.  I strongly believe that our model is the best there is.

Is this question directed at me? I didn't given examples, so I assume not. 

[WhiteTrashCash]

It's been ten months now and Trump hasn't accomplished anything at all, so hopefully things will continue this way. Trump has proven to be completely inept when it comes to getting his ideas turned into law. Honestly, I'd be perfectly fine with the USA operating on auto-pilot for another three years until we can shake up the Yahtzee can and dump it out again in 2020.

[zoltani]

Ok?  Has anyone accused him of sexual assault?  Harassment?

Take off the tin foil hat.

He hasn't been officially accused that I know. I'm thinking if he were to run it would come out, and maybe that is what he is scared of, IDK.

For some reason old Joe gets a pass for his questionable behavior.

Calling him out on it isn't new or a conspiracy, the times even did an article about his inappropriate behavior back in 2015.
http://time.com/3713264/joe-biden-stephanie-carter-shoulder-rub/

[Malloy]

Is this question directed at me? I didn't given examples, so I assume not.


Sorry-Question directed at whoever posted it.

[Davnasty]

Ok?  Has anyone accused him of sexual assault?  Harassment?

Take off the tin foil hat.

He hasn't been officially accused that I know. I'm thinking if he were to run it would come out, and maybe that is what he is scared of, IDK.

For some reason old Joe gets a pass for his questionable behavior.

Calling him out on it isn't new or a conspiracy, the times even did an article about his inappropriate behavior back in 2015.
http://time.com/3713264/joe-biden-stephanie-carter-shoulder-rub/

Your original comment suggested he was a pedophile or at least was on par with a pedophile. Rubbing peoples' shoulders is not anything close to that. Even if there was something wrong with his actions, it should not be discussed in the same conversation as Roy Moore.

And to me, it doesn't look like there is anything sexual about his touching. I know people who do that kind of touching, in fact I knew a whole family that my family was well acquainted with when I was younger, all nice people and they all rubbed people's shoulders. Was it weird? I thought so. But it was obvious that it wasn't sexual, they just acted like they were grandpa/grandma and everyone else was a seven year old.

All that being said, I don't think it's perfectly OK either. With people you know, close family friends maybe this is fine but at work and in the public spotlight, stop being weird Joe.

[zoltani]

Ok?  Has anyone accused him of sexual assault?  Harassment?

Take off the tin foil hat.

He hasn't been officially accused that I know. I'm thinking if he were to run it would come out, and maybe that is what he is scared of, IDK.

For some reason old Joe gets a pass for his questionable behavior.

Calling him out on it isn't new or a conspiracy, the times even did an article about his inappropriate behavior back in 2015.
http://time.com/3713264/joe-biden-stephanie-carter-shoulder-rub/

Your original comment suggested he was a pedophile or at least was on par with a pedophile. Rubbing peoples' shoulders is not anything close to that. Even if there was something wrong with his actions, it should not be discussed in the same conversation as Roy Moore.

And to me, it doesn't look like there is anything sexual about his touching. I know people who do that kind of touching, in fact I knew a whole family that my family was well acquainted with when I was younger, all nice people and they all rubbed people's shoulders. Was it weird? I thought so. But it was obvious that it wasn't sexual, they just acted like they were grandpa/grandma and everyone else was a seven year old.

All that being said, I don't think it's perfectly OK either. With people you know, close family friends maybe this is fine but at work and in the public spotlight, stop being weird Joe.

His behavior seems a bit predatory to me, and he does it to children. That's getting pretty close to being a pedo, rubbing and kissing young women without consent. The comment was that the poster never imagined we would elect a pedo, but Roy Moore is not the first, Ralph Shortey as well. I doubt they are the only two. When evaluating someone's values all we have to judge on is their actions, and Joe's actions, to me, seem predatory.

[GuitarStv]

Ok?  Has anyone accused him of sexual assault?  Harassment?

Take off the tin foil hat.

He hasn't been officially accused that I know. I'm thinking if he were to run it would come out, and maybe that is what he is scared of, IDK.

For some reason old Joe gets a pass for his questionable behavior.

Calling him out on it isn't new or a conspiracy, the times even did an article about his inappropriate behavior back in 2015.
http://time.com/3713264/joe-biden-stephanie-carter-shoulder-rub/

Your original comment suggested he was a pedophile or at least was on par with a pedophile. Rubbing peoples' shoulders is not anything close to that. Even if there was something wrong with his actions, it should not be discussed in the same conversation as Roy Moore.

And to me, it doesn't look like there is anything sexual about his touching. I know people who do that kind of touching, in fact I knew a whole family that my family was well acquainted with when I was younger, all nice people and they all rubbed people's shoulders. Was it weird? I thought so. But it was obvious that it wasn't sexual, they just acted like they were grandpa/grandma and everyone else was a seven year old.

All that being said, I don't think it's perfectly OK either. With people you know, close family friends maybe this is fine but at work and in the public spotlight, stop being weird Joe.

His behavior seems a bit predatory to me, and he does it to children. That's getting pretty close to being a pedo, rubbing and kissing young women without consent. The comment was that the poster never imagined we would elect a pedo, but Roy Moore is not the first, Ralph Shortey as well. I doubt they are the only two. When evaluating someone's values all we have to judge on is their actions, and Joe's actions, to me, seem predatory.

So, to answer DarkandStormy's questions . . .

"Has anyone accused him of sexual assault?"  No.

"Harassment?"  No.

But you don't like him.

[wenchsenior]

Ok?  Has anyone accused him of sexual assault?  Harassment?

Take off the tin foil hat.

He hasn't been officially accused that I know. I'm thinking if he were to run it would come out, and maybe that is what he is scared of, IDK.

For some reason old Joe gets a pass for his questionable behavior.

Calling him out on it isn't new or a conspiracy, the times even did an article about his inappropriate behavior back in 2015.
http://time.com/3713264/joe-biden-stephanie-carter-shoulder-rub/

Your original comment suggested he was a pedophile or at least was on par with a pedophile. Rubbing peoples' shoulders is not anything close to that. Even if there was something wrong with his actions, it should not be discussed in the same conversation as Roy Moore.

And to me, it doesn't look like there is anything sexual about his touching. I know people who do that kind of touching, in fact I knew a whole family that my family was well acquainted with when I was younger, all nice people and they all rubbed people's shoulders. Was it weird? I thought so. But it was obvious that it wasn't sexual, they just acted like they were grandpa/grandma and everyone else was a seven year old.

All that being said, I don't think it's perfectly OK either. With people you know, close family friends maybe this is fine but at work and in the public spotlight, stop being weird Joe.

His behavior seems a bit predatory to me, and he does it to children. That's getting pretty close to being a pedo, rubbing and kissing young women without consent. The comment was that the poster never imagined we would elect a pedo, but Roy Moore is not the first, Ralph Shortey as well. I doubt they are the only two. When evaluating someone's values all we have to judge on is their actions, and Joe's actions, to me, seem predatory.

So, to answer DarkandStormy's questions . . .

"Has anyone accused him of sexual assault?"  No.

"Harassment?"  No.

But you don't like him.

Well given how rampant sexual harassment apparently is on the hill, I would no longer be surprised by ANYONE being accused.  However, I can play this game even better:

I am quite sure Ted Cruz is the biggest creeper in gov't...put a handkerchief on his head and he looks like a creepy witch out of Hansel and Gretel.  Pretty sure that he lures kids to his candy house and TRIES TO EAT THEM.

[zoltani]

So, to answer DarkandStormy's questions . . .

"Has anyone accused him of sexual assault?"  No.

"Harassment?"  No.

But you don't like him.

If there has been a complaint against him we may never know due to non-disclosure agreements.

I don't have a problem with him as a politician, but as a person his actions are questionable.

[zoltani]

Ok?  Has anyone accused him of sexual assault?  Harassment?

Take off the tin foil hat.

He hasn't been officially accused that I know. I'm thinking if he were to run it would come out, and maybe that is what he is scared of, IDK.

For some reason old Joe gets a pass for his questionable behavior.

Calling him out on it isn't new or a conspiracy, the times even did an article about his inappropriate behavior back in 2015.
http://time.com/3713264/joe-biden-stephanie-carter-shoulder-rub/

Your original comment suggested he was a pedophile or at least was on par with a pedophile. Rubbing peoples' shoulders is not anything close to that. Even if there was something wrong with his actions, it should not be discussed in the same conversation as Roy Moore.

And to me, it doesn't look like there is anything sexual about his touching. I know people who do that kind of touching, in fact I knew a whole family that my family was well acquainted with when I was younger, all nice people and they all rubbed people's shoulders. Was it weird? I thought so. But it was obvious that it wasn't sexual, they just acted like they were grandpa/grandma and everyone else was a seven year old.

All that being said, I don't think it's perfectly OK either. With people you know, close family friends maybe this is fine but at work and in the public spotlight, stop being weird Joe.

His behavior seems a bit predatory to me, and he does it to children. That's getting pretty close to being a pedo, rubbing and kissing young women without consent. The comment was that the poster never imagined we would elect a pedo, but Roy Moore is not the first, Ralph Shortey as well. I doubt they are the only two. When evaluating someone's values all we have to judge on is their actions, and Joe's actions, to me, seem predatory.

So, to answer DarkandStormy's questions . . .

"Has anyone accused him of sexual assault?"  No.

"Harassment?"  No.

But you don't like him.

Well given how rampant sexual harassment apparently is on the hill, I would no longer be surprised by ANYONE being accused.  However, I can play this game even better:

I am quite sure Ted Cruz is the biggest creeper in gov't...put a handkerchief on his head and he looks like a creepy witch out of Hansel and Gretel.  Pretty sure that he lures kids to his candy house and TRIES TO EAT THEM.

I think you're right, after all, he is the zodiac killer!

But for reals, he gives me the creep vibes too. 

[Scortius]

So, to answer DarkandStormy's questions . . .

"Has anyone accused him of sexual assault?"  No.

"Harassment?"  No.

But you don't like him.

If there has been a complaint against him we may never know due to non-disclosure agreements.

...

Statements like these are so dangerous. Here's a test, if your statement could be applied to anyone at all, and there would be no way whether or not to falsify a claim through that statement, then the statement itself is completely meaningless. Yet the way it's worded it sure carries a certain connotation. Scary indeed.

[Glenstache]

At a ceremony commemorating Native American "Windtalkers" who served as code speakers in WWII (ie, an event for veterans), Trump decides to bring up and use as part of his speech his Pocahontas nickname for Elizabeth Warren. He literally used a racist slur in a talk commemorating war veterans from that group. Purely disgraceful.

Sadly, this isn't even surprising anymore, even if it remains exasperating.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/362000-white-house-defends-trump-pocahontas-jab-at-navajo-event

[Kris]

At a ceremony commemorating Native American "Windtalkers" who served as code speakers in WWII (ie, an event for veterans), Trump decides to bring up and use as part of his speech his Pocahontas nickname for Elizabeth Warren. He literally used a racist slur in a talk commemorating war veterans from that group. Purely disgraceful.

Sadly, this isn't even surprising anymore, even if it remains exasperating.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/362000-white-house-defends-trump-pocahontas-jab-at-navajo-event

I am still shaking my head in disbelief at this. He said it right to their faces. And kept talking. Good God.

[paddedhat]

It's been ten months now and Trump hasn't accomplished anything at all, so hopefully things will continue this way. Trump has proven to be completely inept when it comes to getting his ideas turned into law. Honestly, I'd be perfectly fine with the USA operating on auto-pilot for another three years until we can shake up the Yahtzee can and dump it out again in 2020.

Sadly, The Orange POS had accomplished an enormous amount of low grade damage, that will take years to repair, if at all. His choice of department heads was specifically done to do the largest amount of damage to them as possible. Tillerson has gutted state, with 60% of the most senior diplomats walking out the door. DeVos is a criminal who has no interest in anything but her billions, and her continually failing push to destroy public education, and promote her Evangelical Jihad. After 14 years of study and battling to prevent a FOREIGN mining company from destroying the most pristine remaining salmon hatchery ground on the planet, in Bristol Bay AK. Dopey's Interior secretary spent an hour with the mining co. CEO, and said, "fuck it, you can start your permit process immediately". There are extremist and totally incompetent judges now seated on the bench that could still be there 45 years from now. Some were picked only because they were young conservative nutjobs, that would hopefully live a long time, and spread the hate. The next three years will be nothing but pushing as much of the greed, radical conservatism, and "save the 1%" agenda as possible, and a huge amount of damage is being done, very quietly.

If he does manage to destroy the ACA, and pass this radical tax bill, he will have had some huge accomplishments, that will have massive and lasting negative effects on the poor and middle class.

[sol]

massive and lasting negative effects on the poor and middle class.

 

Hasn't this been the republican party slogan since Nixon left office?

Like I'm pretty sure Barry Goldwater made this an explicit plank of the party platform, and they've just been flogging that horse ever since.

[Kris]

massive and lasting negative effects on the poor and middle class.

 

Hasn't this been the republican party slogan since Nixon left office?

Like I'm pretty sure Barry Goldwater made this an explicit plank of the party platform, and they've just been flogging that horse ever since.

Not to mention the Southern Strategy. Racism is a feature of the modern Republican party, not a bug.

[infogoon]

Sadly, The Orange POS had accomplished an enormous amount of low grade damage, that will take years to repair, if at all. His choice of department heads was specifically done to do the largest amount of damage to them as possible. Tillerson has gutted state, with 60% of the most senior diplomats walking out the door. DeVos is a criminal who has no interest in anything but her billions, and her continually failing push to destroy public education, and promote her Evangelical Jihad. After 14 years of study and battling to prevent a FOREIGN mining company from destroying the most pristine remaining salmon hatchery ground on the planet, in Bristol Bay AK. Dopey's Interior secretary spent an hour with the mining co. CEO, and said, "fuck it, you can start your permit process immediately". There are extremist and totally incompetent judges now seated on the bench that could still be there 45 years from now. Some were picked only because they were young conservative nutjobs, that would hopefully live a long time, and spread the hate. The next three years will be nothing but pushing as much of the greed, radical conservatism, and "save the 1%" agenda as possible, and a huge amount of damage is being done, very quietly.

If he does manage to destroy the ACA, and pass this radical tax bill, he will have had some huge accomplishments, that will have massive and lasting negative effects on the poor and middle class.

What Tillerson is doing at State is unconscionable, though considering he's a recipient of Russia's "Order of Friendship", I suppose it's not really surprising.

[GuitarStv]

Sadly, The Orange POS had accomplished an enormous amount of low grade damage

He's kicking it up a notch by ending net neutrality.  This will have long term and lasting serious repercussions.

[jim555]

Trump backs Strange, Strange looses.
Trump backs Moore, Moore looses.

He must be getting tired of winning. 

Can't wait for the coming twit storm.

[A Definite Beta Guy]

I am hoping the Moore loss will kill off the stupid Trumpet surge, but I am not holding my breath. Primaries are coming up soon, I guess we'll see if a bunch of crazies get through again.

[scottish]

Yes, TROTW is wondering how long the entertainment will continue.  The 2018 primaries will be a good sign telling us if we have to find other reality shows or not.

[DarkandStormy]

I am hoping the Moore loss will kill off the stupid Trumpet surge, but I am not holding my breath. Primaries are coming up soon, I guess we'll see if a bunch of crazies get through again.

On the contrary, I'm hoping Trump and Bannon back every Republican running a race in 2018.  Their track record is just so good.

[A Definite Beta Guy]

I am hoping the Moore loss will kill off the stupid Trumpet surge, but I am not holding my breath. Primaries are coming up soon, I guess we'll see if a bunch of crazies get through again.

On the contrary, I'm hoping Trump and Bannon back every Republican running a race in 2018.  Their track record is just so good.

Be careful what you wish for.

[DarkandStormy]

I am hoping the Moore loss will kill off the stupid Trumpet surge, but I am not holding my breath. Primaries are coming up soon, I guess we'll see if a bunch of crazies get through again.

On the contrary, I'm hoping Trump and Bannon back every Republican running a race in 2018.  Their track record is just so good.

Be careful what you wish for.

#2017
The Year America Fought Back

ALSEN
Trump'16: +28
Team Trump'17: -1

VAGOV
Trump'16: -5
Team Trump '17: -9

FLIPPED:
- NJ GOV
- 15 VA state House
- 4 in NJ
- WA state Senate
- 14 leg specials

KS04
Trump'16: +27
Team Trump'17: +6

MTAL
16: +20
17: +5

SC05
16: +19
17: +3

Trump has endorsed 3 losers in 2017 - Strange, Gillespie, and Moore.  Keep it up is my message.

[sol]

I am hoping the Moore loss will kill off the stupid Trumpet surge, but I am not holding my breath. Primaries are coming up soon, I guess we'll see if a bunch of crazies get through again.

On the contrary, I'm hoping Trump and Bannon back every Republican running a race in 2018.  Their track record is just so good.

Be careful what you wish for.

It's beginning to look like Americans don't actually support racism, xenophobia, and "economic nationalism".  The alt-right was only ever a Bannon fantasy, not an actual movement.  Americans haven't forgotten our centuries of cultural identity as a welcoming, merit-based, melting pot.

I agree that it is too early to tell for sure, but it's beginning to look like there is no appetite for embracing Trump-style candidates.  That's certainly born out by Trump's own election, where he failed to gather any new voters and only won the electoral college due to anti-hillary fake news targeted at specific demographics vulnerable to social media conspiracy theories.  By the Russians, apparently.

Remember that Trump got a smaller percentage of the electorate than either of the previous two republican presidential candidates, who both lost.

[A Definite Beta Guy]

I am hoping the Moore loss will kill off the stupid Trumpet surge, but I am not holding my breath. Primaries are coming up soon, I guess we'll see if a bunch of crazies get through again.

On the contrary, I'm hoping Trump and Bannon back every Republican running a race in 2018.  Their track record is just so good.

Be careful what you wish for.

#2017
The Year America Fought Back

ALSEN
Trump'16: +28
Team Trump'17: -1

VAGOV
Trump'16: -5
Team Trump '17: -9

FLIPPED:
- NJ GOV
- 15 VA state House
- 4 in NJ
- WA state Senate
- 14 leg specials

KS04
Trump'16: +27
Team Trump'17: +6

MTAL
16: +20
17: +5

SC05
16: +19
17: +3

Trump has endorsed 3 losers in 2017 - Strange, Gillespie, and Moore.  Keep it up is my message.

He also backed Handel over Ossoff, who won.
He's also the President. I can recall many Dems salivating over the prospect of a Trump candidacy, because it was so obvious that they were going to win that in the General Election. That turned out to be really stupid logic.

It's beginning to look like Americans don't actually support racism, xenophobia, and "economic nationalism".  The alt-right was only ever a Bannon fantasy, not an actual movement.  Americans haven't forgotten our centuries of cultural identity as a welcoming, merit-based, melting pot.

I agree that it is too early to tell for sure, but it's beginning to look like there is no appetite for embracing Trump-style candidates.  That's certainly born out by Trump's own election, where he failed to gather any new voters and only won the electoral college due to anti-hillary fake news targeted at specific demographics vulnerable to social media conspiracy theories.  By the Russians, apparently.

Remember that Trump got a smaller percentage of the electorate than either of the previous two republican presidential candidates, who both lost.

Uhhhh, don't really agree with this. At least the parts about America being a welcoming melt-pot that all Americans agree with. That certainly wasn't the case 10 years ago, and I wouldn't bank that being the guiding philosophy 10 years from now.

Trump is a uniquely bad candidate. I have no idea what candidates might emerge in the next several cycles that will take aspects of his messages and run with it. I hope it doesn't happen, because I am with the much-despised "elites" who basically crammed shit like mass immigration, amnesty, and NAFTA down the nation's throat, but it certainly might. It has CERTAINLY happened before, as the US spent several decades with severe immigration restrictions in the 20th century.

[Kris]

I am hoping the Moore loss will kill off the stupid Trumpet surge, but I am not holding my breath. Primaries are coming up soon, I guess we'll see if a bunch of crazies get through again.

On the contrary, I'm hoping Trump and Bannon back every Republican running a race in 2018.  Their track record is just so good.

Be careful what you wish for.

#2017
The Year America Fought Back

ALSEN
Trump'16: +28
Team Trump'17: -1

VAGOV
Trump'16: -5
Team Trump '17: -9

FLIPPED:
- NJ GOV
- 15 VA state House
- 4 in NJ
- WA state Senate
- 14 leg specials

KS04
Trump'16: +27
Team Trump'17: +6

MTAL
16: +20
17: +5

SC05
16: +19
17: +3

Trump has endorsed 3 losers in 2017 - Strange, Gillespie, and Moore.  Keep it up is my message.

He also backed Handel over Ossoff, who won.
He's also the President. I can recall many Dems salivating over the prospect of a Trump candidacy, because it was so obvious that they were going to win that in the General Election. That turned out to be really stupid logic.

It's beginning to look like Americans don't actually support racism, xenophobia, and "economic nationalism".  The alt-right was only ever a Bannon fantasy, not an actual movement.  Americans haven't forgotten our centuries of cultural identity as a welcoming, merit-based, melting pot.

I agree that it is too early to tell for sure, but it's beginning to look like there is no appetite for embracing Trump-style candidates.  That's certainly born out by Trump's own election, where he failed to gather any new voters and only won the electoral college due to anti-hillary fake news targeted at specific demographics vulnerable to social media conspiracy theories.  By the Russians, apparently.

Remember that Trump got a smaller percentage of the electorate than either of the previous two republican presidential candidates, who both lost.

Uhhhh, don't really agree with this. At least the parts about America being a welcoming melt-pot that all Americans agree with. That certainly wasn't the case 10 years ago, and I wouldn't bank that being the guiding philosophy 10 years from now.

Trump is a uniquely bad candidate. I have no idea what candidates might emerge in the next several cycles that will take aspects of his messages and run with it. I hope it doesn't happen, because I am with the much-despised "elites" who basically crammed shit like mass immigration, amnesty, and NAFTA down the nation's throat, but it certainly might. It has CERTAINLY happened before, as the US spent several decades with severe immigration restrictions in the 20th century.

I actually agree with you on this ADBG. This election was not an indication that "Americans" don't actually support racism, xenophobia, and economic nationalism. Only that black Alabamians will rise up against a candidate who is a racist and a pedophile, and save our bacon.

[sol]

Only that black Alabamians will rise up against a candidate who is a racist and a pedophile, and save our bacon.

Let's not be too generous with our praise.  Black southerners failed to turn out in sufficient numbers in 2016 to prevent a Trump presidency. They turned out to defeat Moore, for which I am grateful, but I wish they would have turned out to defeat Trump, too.

[Kris]

Only that black Alabamians will rise up against a candidate who is a racist and a pedophile, and save our bacon.

Let's not be too generous with our praise.  Black southerners failed to turn out in sufficient numbers in 2016 to prevent a Trump presidency. They turned out to defeat Moore, for which I am grateful, but I wish they would have turned out to defeat Trump, too.

Black Americans are not responsible for beating every villain singlehandedly. Maybe we could not put that all on them.

[Davnasty]

Only that black Alabamians will rise up against a candidate who is a racist and a pedophile, and save our bacon.

Let's not be too generous with our praise.  Black southerners failed to turn out in sufficient numbers in 2016 to prevent a Trump presidency. They turned out to defeat Moore, for which I am grateful, but I wish they would have turned out to defeat Trump, too.

Black Americans are not responsible for beating every villain singlehandedly. Maybe we could not put that all on them.

Or maybe we should just stop putting people into groups. Thank you to everyone, regardless of race, who didn't vote for Roy Moore, extra thanks to those who did vote for Doug Jones, and an especially big thanks to the Republicans who know where to draw the line and didn't stick with of him because of the R by his name.

[Kris]

Only that black Alabamians will rise up against a candidate who is a racist and a pedophile, and save our bacon.

Let's not be too generous with our praise.  Black southerners failed to turn out in sufficient numbers in 2016 to prevent a Trump presidency. They turned out to defeat Moore, for which I am grateful, but I wish they would have turned out to defeat Trump, too.

Black Americans are not responsible for beating every villain singlehandedly. Maybe we could not put that all on them.

Or maybe we should just stop putting people into groups. Thank you to everyone, regardless of race, who didn't vote for Roy Moore, extra thanks to those who did vote for Doug Jones, and an especially big thanks to the Republicans who know where to draw the line and didn't stick with of him because of the R by his name.

I dunno. In this case, the black friends I have talked to, and a number of black commentators as well, have said following this election that it's time Democrats actually stop taking the black vote for granted and start actually working for their votes.

[infogoon]

I am hoping the Moore loss will kill off the stupid Trumpet surge, but I am not holding my breath. Primaries are coming up soon, I guess we'll see if a bunch of crazies get through again.

If Bannon makes good on his promised to find Breitbart-approved candidates for every Republican primary, he deserves to be named Democrat of the Year.

[Davnasty]

Only that black Alabamians will rise up against a candidate who is a racist and a pedophile, and save our bacon.

Let's not be too generous with our praise.  Black southerners failed to turn out in sufficient numbers in 2016 to prevent a Trump presidency. They turned out to defeat Moore, for which I am grateful, but I wish they would have turned out to defeat Trump, too.

Black Americans are not responsible for beating every villain singlehandedly. Maybe we could not put that all on them.

Or maybe we should just stop putting people into groups. Thank you to everyone, regardless of race, who didn't vote for Roy Moore, extra thanks to those who did vote for Doug Jones, and an especially big thanks to the Republicans who know where to draw the line and didn't stick with of him because of the R by his name.

I dunno. In this case, the black friends I have talked to, and a number of black commentators as well, have said following this election that it's time Democrats actually stop taking the black vote for granted and start actually working for their votes.

I wouldn't disagree with that, I just meant in terms of praise and blame. From an election standpoint the democratic party should be making an appeal to anyone who is likely to lean left, but doesn't care enough to vote or doesn't think their vote matters. We've seen at this point that current voters are very resistant to change so new voters are where the focus should be, from a campaign perspective at least.

[DarkandStormy]

I wouldn't disagree with that, I just meant in terms of praise and blame. From an election standpoint the democratic party should be making an appeal to anyone who is likely to lean left, but doesn't care enough to vote or doesn't think their vote matters. We've seen at this point that current voters are very resistant to change so new voters are where the focus should be, from a campaign perspective at least.

Thanks to decades of voter suppression, black voters may actually constitute these "new voters" you're looking for.

Black voters may also disproportionately fit your previous criteria of "doesn't think their vote matters."

I generally don't like the grouping of voters into buckets by race either, but the Alabama election was a pretty stark difference in terms of white v. black.

[Lagom]

A fun one for the crowd who thinks Trump's lies are remotely comparable to those of past presidents:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/14/opinion/sunday/trump-lies-obama-who-is-worse.html

[MasterStache]

I wouldn't disagree with that, I just meant in terms of praise and blame. From an election standpoint the democratic party should be making an appeal to anyone who is likely to lean left, but doesn't care enough to vote or doesn't think their vote matters. We've seen at this point that current voters are very resistant to change so new voters are where the focus should be, from a campaign perspective at least.

Thanks to decades of voter suppression, black voters may actually constitute these "new voters" you're looking for.

Black voters may also disproportionately fit your previous criteria of "doesn't think their vote matters."

I generally don't like the grouping of voters into buckets by race either, but the Alabama election was a pretty stark difference in terms of white v. black.

+1. Sure it's not good to group folks. But in order to understand election demographics, well you kind of have to. In Alabama it's still painfully obvious being Republican still meant more than molesting kids, breaking the law, and actual equality to white folks, even white women. We can certainly thank black voters for stepping up and doing what is right. Moore should be in jail, along with every other sexual predator, including Trump.

[Unique User]

I am hoping the Moore loss will kill off the stupid Trumpet surge, but I am not holding my breath. Primaries are coming up soon, I guess we'll see if a bunch of crazies get through again.

On the contrary, I'm hoping Trump and Bannon back every Republican running a race in 2018.  Their track record is just so good.

Be careful what you wish for.

#2017
The Year America Fought Back

ALSEN
Trump'16: +28
Team Trump'17: -1

VAGOV
Trump'16: -5
Team Trump '17: -9

FLIPPED:
- NJ GOV
- 15 VA state House
- 4 in NJ
- WA state Senate
- 14 leg specials

KS04
Trump'16: +27
Team Trump'17: +6

MTAL
16: +20
17: +5

SC05
16: +19
17: +3

Trump has endorsed 3 losers in 2017 - Strange, Gillespie, and Moore.  Keep it up is my message.

He also backed Handel over Ossoff, who won.
He's also the President. I can recall many Dems salivating over the prospect of a Trump candidacy, because it was so obvious that they were going to win that in the General Election. That turned out to be really stupid logic.

It's beginning to look like Americans don't actually support racism, xenophobia, and "economic nationalism".  The alt-right was only ever a Bannon fantasy, not an actual movement.  Americans haven't forgotten our centuries of cultural identity as a welcoming, merit-based, melting pot.

I agree that it is too early to tell for sure, but it's beginning to look like there is no appetite for embracing Trump-style candidates.  That's certainly born out by Trump's own election, where he failed to gather any new voters and only won the electoral college due to anti-hillary fake news targeted at specific demographics vulnerable to social media conspiracy theories.  By the Russians, apparently.

Remember that Trump got a smaller percentage of the electorate than either of the previous two republican presidential candidates, who both lost.

Uhhhh, don't really agree with this. At least the parts about America being a welcoming melt-pot that all Americans agree with. That certainly wasn't the case 10 years ago, and I wouldn't bank that being the guiding philosophy 10 years from now.

Trump is a uniquely bad candidate. I have no idea what candidates might emerge in the next several cycles that will take aspects of his messages and run with it. I hope it doesn't happen, because I am with the much-despised "elites" who basically crammed shit like mass immigration, amnesty, and NAFTA down the nation's throat, but it certainly might. It has CERTAINLY happened before, as the US spent several decades with severe immigration restrictions in the 20th century.

I actually agree with you on this ADBG. This election was not an indication that "Americans" don't actually support racism, xenophobia, and economic nationalism. Only that black Alabamians will rise up against a candidate who is a racist and a pedophile, and save our bacon.

I was so disappointed to see those numbers for white women so I tried to see if those numbers were broken out by age.  They were and the split (although I can't remember exact numbers) was pretty well as expected, older voted for Moore and younger voted for Jones.
 Also interesting was the religious split - 80% of evangelical whites voted for Moore, 72% of non-evangelical whites voted for Jones.   

[Just Joe]

But why not? That Moore fellow was just a good Christian pedophile! He needed our voter support!

Now we're saddled with one of those damn liberals!

[GuitarStv]

Given that Jesus was a hard-core communist who accepted everyone for who they are, it always seemed strange to me that someone could call themselves a Christian while at the same time embrace socially conservative policies.

[DarkandStormy]

I am hoping the Moore loss will kill off the stupid Trumpet surge, but I am not holding my breath. Primaries are coming up soon, I guess we'll see if a bunch of crazies get through again.

On the contrary, I'm hoping Trump and Bannon back every Republican running a race in 2018.  Their track record is just so good.

Be careful what you wish for.

#2017
The Year America Fought Back

ALSEN
Trump'16: +28
Team Trump'17: -1

VAGOV
Trump'16: -5
Team Trump '17: -9

FLIPPED:
- NJ GOV
- 15 VA state House
- 4 in NJ
- WA state Senate
- 14 leg specials

KS04
Trump'16: +27
Team Trump'17: +6

MTAL
16: +20
17: +5

SC05
16: +19
17: +3

Trump has endorsed 3 losers in 2017 - Strange, Gillespie, and Moore.  Keep it up is my message.

He also backed Handel over Ossoff, who won.
He's also the President. I can recall many Dems salivating over the prospect of a Trump candidacy, because it was so obvious that they were going to win that in the General Election. That turned out to be really stupid logic.

Ossoff lost by 3.56% (9,282 votes).

The seat was previously held by Republican Tom Price.  He won in 2016 by 23.4% and in 2014 by 32.08%.  He won in 2012 by 29.02%.

So yes, in a district that a Republican won on average by 28.17% in the last three elections, Trump managed to endorse someone who won by 3.56% (LOL).  It was the closest race for the seat this century, perhaps even longer (a quick Google search only provides data back to 2000).

His endorsement of Handel showed how toxic he is - he turned a Republican stronghold into a tossup.  Amazing.

[A Definite Beta Guy]

His endorsement of Handel showed how toxic he is - he turned a Republican stronghold into a tossup.  Amazing.

This does not follow from any of your data. If Trump had NOT endorsed Handel and said nothing, what would be the likely result?

[DarkandStormy]

His endorsement of Handel showed how toxic he is - he turned a Republican stronghold into a tossup.  Amazing.

This does not follow from any of your data. If Trump had NOT endorsed Handel and said nothing, what would be the likely result?

You want me to predict the past based on a data point that didn't occur?

[dividendman]

I think most of the damage Trump is going to do is in nominating judges to the federal bench. Like this guy who when asked the most basic legal questions, couldn't answer anything.

https://twitter.com/SenWhitehouse/status/941484131757838337

Jeez, maybe I should be a nominated to the bench as well. I think I'm actually more qualified.

[Just Joe]

Oh my gosh!

[dividendman]

Oh my gosh!

Yeah, exactly. I love how Senator Kennedy (R-Louisiana) ends his questioning with "Have any of you ever blogged for the Ku Klux Klan?" The fact that even has to be asked is amazing.

Federal bench appointments are lifetime appointments and need a majority of the House and two-thirds of the Senate to impeach and remove - it basically never happens. So if these guys get through that's it.

Edited to add the link context since this got moved to the next page: https://twitter.com/SenWhitehouse/status/941484131757838337

[Barbaebigode]

I think most of the damage Trump is going to do is in nominating judges to the federal bench. Like this guy who when asked the most basic legal questions, couldn't answer anything.

https://twitter.com/SenWhitehouse/status/941484131757838337

Jeez, maybe I should be a nominated to the bench as well. I think I'm actually more qualified.

The qualification this administration is looking for is not the type that you get by reading law books.