All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[The no face guy]

For Trump to win the election he must do three things.

1) Hold the traditional red states. If he loses Arizona or South Carolina (just one of those states) he's done.

2) Win Florida. If your watching the election and he loses Florida you can start celebrating; he's done.

3) In addition to winning Florida, he must hold onto one of the blue wall mid west states other than Ohio (Which he probably will win) preferably Pennsylvania. If he doesn't he's done.

Be wary of the fact...despite COVID, he still polls well in Florida
Last election there was a major white working class phantom vote in eastern Pennsylvania, particularly Pittsburg, which is why he took the state
Finally, like last time the polls severely unrepresented the Trump vote, because many voters who vote for Trump, do not publicly endorse him.

All that being said, do I think he will win....I still lean to no.

https://www.270towin.com/

[worstblogever]

The GOP may be resigned to the fact that they're never winning the popular vote again. Not the way they're behaving.

Think about that... come 2024, it will have been 20 years since a Republican won the popular vote. And not by a ton.

Prior to that, they won't have done so since 1988.

They've just given up on democracy, full stop.

[worstblogever]

For Trump to win the election he must do three things.

1) Hold the traditional red states. If he loses Arizona or South Carolina (just one of those states) he's done.

2) Win Florida. If your watching the election and he loses Florida you can start celebrating; he's done.

3) In addition to winning Florida, he must hold onto one of the blue wall mid west states other than Ohio (Which he probably will win) preferably Pennsylvania. If he doesn't he's done.

Be wary of the fact...despite COVID, he still polls well in Florida
Last election there was a major white working class phantom vote in eastern Pennsylvania, particularly Pittsburg, which is why he took the state
Finally, like last time the polls severely unrepresented the Trump vote, because many voters who vote for Trump, do not publicly endorse him.

All that being said, do I think he will win....I still lean to no.

https://www.270towin.com/

Gonna say it again.

This is a false narrative. The polls ended up being right in 2016.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...are-all-right/

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, as well as 2019, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" published profiles of the U.S. House Representative from Florida’s 3rd Congressional District, Ted Yoho, a former horse-veterinarian and Birther conspiracy theorist who thinks that there should be no limits on the 2nd Amendment, and civilians should literally have access to all the same equipment and weapons that the American military does. He also campaigned hard against raising the debt ceiling, even though doing so would cause a catastrophic failure of not just the American economy, but the global economy. He also voted for the 2013 Government Shutdown, wanted to keep the government closed, and was aghast at the prospect that furloughed workers might receive back pay after the fact, and his staunch opposition to the Affordable Care Act that motivated that shutdown vote has made Yoho compare himself to MLK and Rosa Parks (which is amazing considering he once gave his opinion that he didn’t think the Civil Rights Act was constitutional), and his stance was once eloquently expressed in his dismay that African Americans pay at the same rate as white Americans when they can't use tanning beds (No, I'm not making that up). If that's not some ridiculously racist perspective, he advocated returning voting rights only to property owners, like back in the "good old days". (Y'know,like in the 19th Century, when owning slaves was legal). In December of 2016, Rep. Yoho again responded to Donald Trump’s calls for a ban on Muslims in the United States, saying if people “have a Middle Eastern background that we can’t verify, they need to be out of the country.” A few months later in September of 2016 at a town hall meeting, Yoho bragged about fishing off the Florida coast when he and his son supposedly spotted a boat of Cuban refugees who “wanted liberty and freedom” and followed them to help the Coast Guard pinpoint their location and deport them back to Cuba, boasting further that he had saved taxpayer dollars in his misadventure.

Whether it was in March of 2017 when he announced that he wanted to start drug testing welfare recipients on a national level (in spite of the policy being a failure when it comes to finding people on welfare on drugs, and it’s frequently been ruled a violation of the 4th Amendment), his excitement at trying to repeal Dodd-Frank legislation, which he thought of as “saving the little banks”, or in July of 2017, when he was chomping at the bit to try and get legislation in the House to allow himself the ability to carry a gun in Congress:

“I think it’s a good idea. I have the right to protect myself. I feel like I have very good aim. My wife is better.”

But, even with all of that, perhaps the most disturbing moment from Ted Yoho in 2017 was when he defended California Congressman Devin Nunes from criticism he was getting for interfering in the Trump/Russia investigation by leaking information about it back to the White House. In Ted Yoho’s mind, there was nothing strange about that, because as he put it, Nunes “works for the president”:

”You’ve got to keep in mind who he works for. He works for the president. He answers to the president.”

Wiser people better versed in things like our system of checks and balances or, y’know, basic civics courses pointed out that no, actually, Republican Congressman aren’t supposed to be working for the president, they’re supposed to be working for their constituents and above all else, upholding our Constitution. And it’s rather disturbing that the simple nuances of what his job as a legislator actually entails eludes Rep. Yoho.

In 2018, we’re amazed that the Republican Party still let this moron in front of a microphone, as he got on the bandwagon to try and save the Supreme Court nomination of alleged serial sexual predator Brett Kavanaugh by going on Fox News and claiming KAVANAUGH was “the victim” in all of this, just like… Roy Moore was a “victim of character assassination” when he was accused by multiple women of being a pedophile running around Alabama attempting to commit statutory rape so many times that he got banned from a mall for it. Yes, THAT Roy Moore. Yoho, apparently deciding he hadn’t been an inhuman monster enough already, went on to then attack the entire #MeToo movement, because it upsets him that he can’t compliment ladies anymore:

“The #MeToo movement, you know if there’s wrong done to anybody, you know, we need to go after that. But it’s gotten so sterile up there.It’s like right now I couldn’t compliment you on your hair or your outfit you have on now, or somebody would say that was pretty presumptuous.”

Ted Yoho is not known for thinking quick on his feet, or really known for thinking at all, and that’s why it was bizarre to see him host a town hall on Passover weekend of last year, in a district that has folks that, y’know, kind of are Jewish and celebrate the holiday. One of his constituents responded by holding a seder RIGHT OUTSIDE the town hall before it started, and everyone piled in, ready to pillory their dumbass Congressman. And boy, did he give them opportunities, like when he defended the GOP’s attempts to close Planned Parenthood health centers because it would “save lives”, then claimed that cutting their funding would stop them from performing abortions (none of their government funding goes towards abortions). Rep. Yoho didn’t fare better when he denied the existence of climate change, and for his views on transphobic citizens using public bathrooms, where he was raucously booed. The only part of his town hall that went well was when he admitted Donald Trump should release his tax returns, and that Russia’s meddling in our elections should be investigated. His town halls in 2018 have not gone much better, with Yoho getting the business for continuing to deny the Trump campaign in any way colluded with Russians during the 2016 elections.

As we were ready to report on Ted Yoho’s pending retirement in 2020, at the end of this term in Congress, we had thought he might go off into the sunset quietly. That was not to be the case. Rep. Yoho, often called out for racism, drew attention to himself back in June when he became one of only four members of the House to vote against an anti-lynching bill. But why couldn’t he also do something incredibly sexist before he left office? On July 24th, 2020, on the steps of the capitol, Ted Yoho crossed paths with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is living rent-free inside the heads of many Republicans these days, Yoho among them. For no reason whatsoever, Yoho started harassing her about gun violene, and when she started to explain herself, he opted to just scream at her that she was “a f***ing bitch” in front of earshot of a reporter. He then gave a non-apology for his behavior when it was reported on, leading to Ocasio-Cortez to respond with an impassioned speech on the floor of the House reminding Yoho’s excuses about being a father of two daughters, reading him for filth when she pointed out, “I’m someone daughter, too.”

Ted Yoho can go back to treating horses and get lost giving one a rectal exam, in our honest opinion. Good riddance.

[babyblob]

The GOP enjoyed the insanity that came with Trump as a faux authoritarian because he got them three conservative justices while raking in boatloads of cash from tax cuts, so it stands to reason they’re going prop up another Trump like madman for 2024. While it’s unlikely Republicans can find anyone as thuggish and unhinged as the Donald, that doesn’t mean they won’t try, and believe me, they will, hell, there’s already an early contender in the clubhouse in Tucker Carlson who’s shown he’s demented enough to run on the Republican ticket.

That is what scares me. Not Tucker per say but I am waiting for Trump 2.0 to come along. I mean Trump is a nut job. And he got tons of followers. What happens when there is another Trump like figure who is charismatic and well spoken and great at whipping up a crowd. Trump 2.0 is coming. That is what should worry people.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

That is what scares me. Not Tucker per say but I am waiting for Trump 2.0 to come along. I mean Trump is a nut job. And he got tons of followers. What happens when there is another Trump like figure who is charismatic and well spoken and great at whipping up a crowd. Trump 2.0 is coming. That is what should worry people.

If Trump loses 2020, Trump will go down in the annals as a "one-term president" and the Republicans themselves, thanks to their scapegoating of Jimmy Carter have made "1-term" a badge of shame in American politics. That's why Bush I and his relatively more moderate Presidency is never invoked (he lost to Bubba Clinton), nor Gerald Ford (never elected to start with, lost to Carter), nor Richard Nixon (his own party forced him to quit).

So if Trump loses in 2020, then I don't think "Trump 2.0" happens. Remember, the issue with Trump 2.0 is that Trump is in essence Reagan 3.0 (Dubya being 2.0) and Reagan himself was Barry Goldwater 2.0 as well as Nixon 2.0 in some respects. Reagan remember in his campaign used slogans like "Make America Great Again" as well as "Drain the Swamp" (no seriously look it up). The Republican party in its contemporary version is Reagan's creation. The entire reason the Republican Party became such a hotbed of dog-whistle Civil Rights revanchists is because Reagan became such a successful president, and also a popular and well-liked President (even if he wasn't actually a very good President). Nowadays American media uses Richard Nixon as a comparison to Trump and the reason they can do that is Nixon is anathema to the American mainstream in a way Reagan, unfortunately, is not (this is also why Alan Moore used Nixon as a the bad president in the comic rather than Reagan). Reagan taught the Republican party that if you are telegenic, charismatic and can belt out catchy slogans and titles you can get away with anything. Remember that Reagan had the record for the most corrupt administration before 2016. More than 150 officials were indicted and imprisoned from his administration, likewise you had Iran Contra, Able Archer and other crises of his regime. Reagan also had a major public health crisis in his time, AIDS, and his administration did nothing and more or less leaving the LGBT people to die (with Anthony Fauci alone doing his best to make something happen).

So yeah, Trump's presidency resembles Reagan more than Nixon. What made Reagan dangerous and terrible for American politics was a) his genuine popularity, b) his political success (two successful terms, high approval ratings).

Anyway, that's why I think if Trump loses in 2020, I think he'd be removed from the stage. For one thing, he has a ton of debt coming real soon. Trump's base has been radicalized of course and they will continue to fester for a while, and the aftermath and damage done by Trump will endure unfortunately but I think he himself is a political dead end. For one thing, no Republican politician can claim Trump's unique figure...someone who never held political office before. His trampling of decorum and civility gave him a novelty that other politicians can't quite recapture, certainly no one in the party at present (Tom Cotton often prepped as a candidate in future is a military veteran and is going with that angle which El Capitan Bone Spurs didn't do).

[numberthirty]

When it comes to a "Trump 2.0" sort of a situation...

I fully expect Republicans to just put a serious effort into stopping it at all costs. Think of what the rest of the Democratic field did when it came to Sanders this last time out.

[numberthirty]

If Trump loses 2020, Trump will go down in the annals as a "one-term president" and the Republicans themselves, thanks to their scapegoating of Jimmy Carter have made "1-term" a badge of shame in American politics. That's why Bush I and his relatively more moderate Presidency is never invoked (he lost to Bubba Clinton), nor Gerald Ford (never elected to start with, lost to Carter), nor Richard Nixon (his own party forced him to quit).

So if Trump loses in 2020, then I don't think "Trump 2.0" happens. Remember, the issue with Trump 2.0 is that Trump is in essence Reagan 3.0 (Dubya being 2.0) and Reagan himself was Barry Goldwater 2.0 as well as Nixon 2.0 in some respects. Reagan remember in his campaign used slogans like "Make America Great Again" as well as "Drain the Swamp" (no seriously look it up). The Republican party in its contemporary version is Reagan's creation. The entire reason the Republican Party became such a hotbed of dog-whistle Civil Rights revanchists is because Reagan became such a successful president, and also a popular and well-liked President (even if he wasn't actually a very good President). Nowadays American media uses Richard Nixon as a comparison to Trump and the reason they can do that is Nixon is anathema to the American mainstream in a way Reagan, unfortunately, is not (this is also why Alan Moore used Nixon as a the bad president in the comic rather than Reagan). Reagan taught the Republican party that if you are telegenic, charismatic and can belt out catchy slogans and titles you can get away with anything. Remember that Reagan had the record for the most corrupt administration before 2016. More than 150 officials were indicted and imprisoned from his administration, likewise you had Iran Contra, Able Archer and other crises of his regime. Reagan also had a major public health crisis in his time, AIDS, and his administration did nothing and more or less leaving the LGBT people to die (with Anthony Fauci alone doing his best to make something happen).

So yeah, Trump's presidency resembles Reagan more than Nixon. What made Reagan dangerous and terrible for American politics was a) his genuine popularity, b) his political success (two successful terms, high approval ratings).

Anyway, that's why I think if Trump loses in 2020, I think he'd be removed from the stage. For one thing, he has a ton of debt coming real soon. Trump's base has been radicalized of course and they will continue to fester for a while, and the aftermath and damage done by Trump will endure unfortunately but I think he himself is a political dead end. For one thing, no Republican politician can claim Trump's unique figure...someone who never held political office before. His trampling of decorum and civility gave him a novelty that other politicians can't quite recapture, certainly no one in the party at present (Tom Cotton often prepped as a candidate in future is a military veteran and is going with that angle which El Capitan Bone Spurs didn't do).

There's also that he will likely be looking at, minimum, a criminal investigation.

Anything actually comes of it, "Business As Usual..." Republicans seize that opportunity to throw Trump all the way under the bus.

[numberthirty]

Chris Cuomo and Ted Cruz need to quit goofing around, and just have a Russian chain match already...

[Revolutionary_Jack]

When it comes to a "Trump 2.0" sort of a situation...

I fully expect Republicans to just put a serious effort into stopping it at all costs. Think of what the rest of the Democratic field did when it came to Sanders this last time out.

Here's the thing, "Trump 2.0" wouldn't call himself or herself "Trump 2.0". They will call themselves "Reagan 4.0". People who worry and wonder what a competent and capable version of Trump would be like forget that America already had Reagan. I don't see Republicans trying to stop "Reagan 4.0" even if in all senses (dog whistle, shallow charisma, superficial sound-bites, teflon dodging of accountability) it wouldn't be different from Trump.

I also don't see that as being comparable with Sanders at all. Sanders is an experienced politician with several decades with a consistency of message and principles. That's not the same thing.

[numberthirty]

Here's the thing, "Trump 2.0" wouldn't call himself or herself "Trump 2.0". They will call themselves "Reagan 4.0". People who worry and wonder what a competent and capable version of Trump would be like forget that America already had Reagan. I don't see Republicans trying to stop "Reagan 4.0" even if in all senses (dog whistle, shallow charisma, superficial sound-bites, teflon dodging of accountability) it wouldn't be different from Trump.

I also don't see that as being comparable with Sanders at all. Sanders is an experienced politician with several decades with a consistency of message and principles. That's not the same thing.

While it's "What If?...", it is comparable in that I have a feeling that Republicans will run the exact same playbook that Democrats ran in order to stop Sanders.

What they will most likely do is exactly the same thing.

The "Business As Usual..." element will set aside their differences in if means stopping anyone who might try to mess with the gravy train.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Here's the thing, "Trump 2.0" wouldn't call himself or herself "Trump 2.0". They will call themselves "Reagan 4.0". People who worry and wonder what a competent and capable version of Trump would be like forget that America already had Reagan. I don't see Republicans trying to stop "Reagan 4.0" even if in all senses (dog whistle, shallow charisma, superficial sound-bites, teflon dodging of accountability) it wouldn't be different from Trump.

That'd be reversing the trend, you're describing George W. Bush - someone who is a moderate in the Republican party . That's how off the rails Trump and his successor would be. All Trump did was exaggerate all the horrible things W. did, which is impressive considering how much of a monster W. was, and is from the Far Right of the party - the faction who wants to publicly connect themselves with the Proud Boys. The next Trump will be more like Bolsonaro or Duterte.

I also don't see that as being comparable with Sanders at all. Sanders is an experienced politician with several decades with a consistency of message and principles. That's not the same thing.

Sanders is a strange case as a politician, in that he's both someone whose on the more extreme then the moderate wing and how he uses language evokes popularism, however, he's just not as successful at changing the Democrats as Trump was for the GOP. Trump had an audience for that, Sanders didn't. The GOP itself crated that audience long before Trump got elected, all he did was activate them and the Democrats aren't as vulnerable to being overtaken. They respect rules and decorum.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

While it's "What If?...", it is comparable in that I have a feeling that Republicans will run the exact same playbook that Democrats ran in order to stop Sanders.

The reason it's different is that there's never been a candidate like Bernie Sanders in US politics. Someone who runs as an Independent, runs on a platform of being a "Democratic Socialist".

Whereas with Trump, he did have Reagan as a precedent and an example to invoke.

Sanders is an innovative force and element in American politics whereas Trump, while many see him as innovative, is essentially a fairly conventional Republican president as Candidate and POTUS.

[The no face guy]

Gonna say it again.

This is a false narrative. The polls ended up being right in 2016.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...are-all-right/

Hmmm, I'll respectfully disagree, I don't know much about your source, but I generally trust Pew Research & to a lesser extend the New York Times to validate the general consensus that the pollsters got it wrong in 2016. (though I'm always open to having my opinion changed)

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ed-their-mark/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/u...out-trump.html


Trump polled the same as Romney with the white vote, with the exception of one major difference. He increased the white working class vote in the rust belt states, particularly in Pennsylvania. This is the phantom vote that was not accounted for in the polling.

There is an article (I wish I could find it) that shows how Trump dramatically increased the white working class vote in Pennsylvania by quite a large margin, which offset Clinton's gains in Philadelphia. It makes me nervous. If anyone in this forum is a Pennsylvania democrat, my advice would be to start helping your local Democrat get elected in November.

All that being said, I still think Trump will lose, but if he wins, it will be because he won Florida and Pennsylvania.

[numberthirty]

The reason it's different is that there's never been a candidate like Bernie Sanders in US politics. Someone who runs as an Independent, runs on a platform of being a "Democratic Socialist".

Whereas with Trump, he did have Reagan as a precedent and an example to invoke.

Sanders is an innovative force and element in American politics whereas Trump, while many see him as innovative, is essentially a fairly conventional Republican president as Candidate and POTUS.

Whole other discussion...

The thing that would be the same is that I don't ever see the big two not running "Sanders 2020..." if something like Trump winning the primary or Sanders being well on the way to winning the primary should happen in the future.