What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Valmy]

Comparing party affiliation and political leaning is mostly meaningless.  And the so-called "independent" classification has pretty much always been so.

He said they were more Democratic than the general population, they are not.

[Valmy]

And your second sentence is pure gibberish.  If you think independents are only "so called," what is your alternate word for them, and why is your word better than the traditional one?  And what is it that that they have been "pretty much so?"

Research in political science for the last 20 years tends to show that self-described independent act politically pretty much exactly as democrats or republicans (according to their professed leanings). The sliver of independent voters who can't fit political patterns from parties is much smaller than the number of self-proclaimed independents.

What does 'act politically' mean?

[grumbler]

Research in political science for the last 20 years tends to show that self-described independent act politically pretty much exactly as democrats or republicans (according to their professed leanings). The sliver of independent voters who can't fit political patterns from parties is much smaller than the number of self-proclaimed independents.

The research in political science over the last 20 years that I have seen indicates precisely the opposite:  that self-identified independents voted for policies and candidates based on the qualities of those candidates and policies, rather than the party affiliation of the candidate or policy.  Political research in the 1960s and 1970s, that defined independents as ticket-splitters, reached the conclusions that you have stated.  But those are not necessarily people who self-identified as independents; they were often party affiliates who split tickets to punish members of their own parties who "strayed." 

This isn't to say that all self-identified independents are neutral in terms of partisan politics.  Many lean towards more liberal or more conservative viewpoints but find the parties distasteful.  But that still doesn't change the fact that they are independent of party loyalty when they vote.

By the same token, the sliver of party-affiliated voters who are actually partisan to the point of voting for candidates or policies  they dislike purely for the sake of party loyalty is much smaller than the number of self-identified Republicans and Democrats.

[CountDeMoney]

I really wish the Mooch stuck around longer than he did.  So pretty and tailored, blowing us kisses, a human pinkie ring.  Watching Sarah Huckabee Sanders is like watching a dump truck.

[garbon]

I liked Fallon's sketch of substituting in Mabel "Madea" Simmons.

[Oexmelin]

Clearly we haven't read the same thing.

Or perhaps the problem lies in the definition of independents, which some political scientists attempt to divide between "fashionable" independents, that is, people who claim to be independent, albeit with a leaning, but who vote exactly like actual partisans; then there are the apathetic independents, who tend to be disengaged with politics altogether - and were generally assessed to be poorly informed, easily swayed, yet unlikely to vote. The novel category of the "apartisan" - the subject of the dealignment literature - are people who *are* politically informed, but find partisan politics repugnant. It's very much a topic of debate, but from what I have seen, these "apartisan" people are more likely to abstain from voting altogether - i.e., a very similar behavior from the apathetic independents. And while the "apartisan" people are a growing share of the "electorate" (hence the interest from party perspective), the "partisan independents" still comprise the majority of independents.

In any case, and considering previous conversations on the topic, it seemed to me that Tonitrus was targeting either the uselessness of "independent" as a meaningful electoral or political category, and certainly was targeting a perceived gap between the positive association of independent as "independent-minded"  contrasted with partisans. I suppose it is possible he was making an extremely trivial, and disprovable point ("independents" defined as people with no party association is a meaningless term) but somehow, I don't think that's the most generous takeaway.

[Admiral Yi]

Clearly we haven't read the same thing.

Or perhaps the problem lies in the definition of independents, which some political scientists attempt to divide between "fashionable" independents, that is, people who claim to be independent, albeit with a leaning, but who vote exactly like actual partisans; then there are the apathetic independents, who tend to be disengaged with politics altogether - and were generally assessed to be poorly informed, easily swayed, yet unlikely to vote. The novel category of the "apartisan" - the subject of the dealignment literature - are people who *are* politically informed, but find partisan politics repugnant. It's very much a topic of debate, but from what I have seen, these "apartisan" people are more likely to abstain from voting altogether - i.e., a very similar behavior from the apathetic independents. And while the "apartisan" people are a growing share of the "electorate" (hence the interest from party perspective), the "partisan independents" still comprise the majority of independents.

In any case, and considering previous conversations on the topic, it seemed to me that Tonitrus was targeting either the uselessness of "independent" as a meaningful electoral or political category, and certainly was targeting a perceived gap between the positive association of independent as "independent-minded"  contrasted with partisans. I suppose it is possible he was making an extremely trivial, and disprovable point ("independents" defined as people with no party association is a meaningless term) but somehow, I don't think that's the most generous takeaway.

That certainly aligns with my observations of self proclaimed independents.

I don't see how Tonto's point was either trivial or disprovable.  Not trivial, because some people continue to believe that party registration is a useful marker for ideology, and not easily disprovable, because as you yourself said "independence" doesn't correlate with lack of party identification.

[Oexmelin]

I don't see how Tonto's point was either trivial or disprovable.

I may have been unclear. You are right: I think Tonitrus' point was neither. It was grumbler's reading of it as gibberish which was puzzling. i.e., it was only gibberish if Tonitrus' point relied on an extremely trivial definition of independents as "people who are not Democrats or Republicans".

[Admiral Yi]

Gotcha

[dps]

Comparing party affiliation and political leaning is mostly meaningless.  And the so-called "independent" classification has pretty much always been so.

He said they were more Democratic than the general population, they are not.

I said people who work in the national media, not all journalists.  Those who work in the national media are, I would assume, a fairly small percentage of all journalists, but also a disproportionally percentage that has a disproportionate influence.  At least they had a disproportionate influence prior to the rise of the internet;  I'd think that they still do, but not to as great an extent.

[Tonitrus]

So I'm told that this executive order from today allows the recall of inactive service members: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/10/20/presidential-executive-order-amending-executive-order-13223

If true, I wonder what's up....

I haven't looked hard into it, but on the surface it looks like it is delegating the power to recall the IRR to the service secretaries.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/21/air-force-could-recall-up-to-1000-retired-pilots-after-trump-order.html

[grumbler]

That certainly aligns with my observations of self proclaimed independents.

I don't see how Tonto's point was either trivial or disprovable.  Not trivial, because some people continue to believe that party registration is a useful marker for ideology, and not easily disprovable, because as you yourself said "independence" doesn't correlate with lack of party identification.

Tonto's point was that "Comparing party affiliation and political leaning is mostly meaningless."  Are you saying that you agree with this point?

[CountDeMoney]

The book report is due Monday? This Monday?  I knew that.  It's almost done.

Donald Trump Is Rush-Shipping Condolences to Military Families
Three families of fallen servicemembers received next-day UPS letters from President Trump after a turbulent week in which Trump falsely claimed he had called "virtually all" of the families.
The Atlantic, That Was Founded By Abolitionists You Know, Not Many People Know That


The Trump administration is scrambling to defend the president's characterization of his communications with grieving military families, including rush-delivering letters from the president to the families of servicemembers killed months ago. Donald Trump falsely claimed this week that he had called "virtually" all fallen servicemembers' families since his time in office.

Timothy Eckels Sr. hadn't heard anything from President Trump since his son Timothy Eckels Jr. was killed after a collision involving the USS John S. McCain on August 21. But then, on October 20, two days into the controversy over the president's handling of a condolence call with an American soldier's widow, Eckels Sr. received a United Parcel Service package dated October 18 with a letter from the White House.

"Honestly, I feel the letter is reactionary to the media storm brewing over how these things have been handled," Eckels told The Atlantic. "I've received letters from McCain, Mattis, and countless other officials before his. I wasn't sure if the fact that the accident that caused Timothy's death has still yet to officially have the cause determined played into the timing of our president's response."

He added that the letter "seemed genuine and even mentioned Timothy's siblings." It was "a respectful letter," Eckels wrote. The family of Corey Ingram, another Navy systems technician who died in the collision on the USS John McCain, also confirmed to The Atlantic they received a rush-delivered letter from the White House on October 20. A third family, of another sailor who perished in the accident, John M. Hoagland III, said they, too, received a rush-delivery letter this week. It was not immediately clear whether White House condolence letters are typically sent via this expedited shipping.

The White House declined to address The Atlantic's specific questions about how Trump has—or has not—comforted grieving military families. "The president and the nation are grateful for the service and sacrifice of our fallen American heroes," a White House official told The Atlantic."We have addressed the president's outreach to the families extensively and out of respect, we are not going to comment further."

The controversy began with a Rose Garden press conference on Monday, October 16, in which Trump was asked why he had not spoken out about the deaths of four U.S. servicemembers in Niger on October 4. He responded by falsely suggesting that previous presidents hadn't made personal calls to the families of slain U.S. servicemembers. The next day, he followed up by claiming that he had called "virtually" all fallen servicemembers' families, which was also false.

In the past week, The Atlantic made contact with 12 families who had been identified as having lost kin serving in the military since January. Along with those contacted by other news outlets like The Washington Post and the Associated Press, about 25 of the 46 families have been reached. Of those 25, a plurality—11 families—said they had received neither a call nor a letter from the president. Nine confirmed that they had received personal calls from the president. Members of four families said they had received a letter, but no call. And members of the remaining family were contacted by the White House, but declined to meet with the president.

According to Roll Call, by 5 p.m. on October 17, the White House had asked and received information from the Pentagon that indicated "senior White House aides were aware on the day the president made the statement that it was not accurate—but that they should try to make it accurate as soon as possible, given the gathering controversy."

Especially during wartime, presidents are not expected to personally call the surviving family members of every fallen service member. More than 4,000 American servicemembers have died in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the firestorm around Trump's claims about his contacts with military families set off an effort within his administration to shore up the president's claims.

On Tuesday, Trump called the families of four men who died in Niger on October 4, after promising to do so in the Monday press briefing. Then, along with the rush-delivered letters to the families of Eckels, Hoagland, and Ingram, Trump also mailed a $25,000 check on Wednesday to a grieving father to whom he had promised money in a June phone call, the father told The Washington Post.

The money, the rush-delivered letters, and the recent phone calls all represent a sharp change for an administration whose outreach to bereaved military families had appeared to slow since June.

Two families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan on August 2, Christopher Harris and Jonathon Hunter, were told they should expect a call and never received one. The families of Army Specialist Alvin Levi Stigler Jr. and Sergeant Roshain Euvince Brooks, who died in Iraq in August, did not receive calls.

Several other families have talked to other news outlets about their experiences. Jasmin William Bays, the wife of Sergeant William Bays, received a call from Trump, and wrote on Facebook that "the President's words to me were kind, genuine and sincere. His words helped me heal during my time of grief." Other recent presidents have not personally called all military families who have lost relatives, but both presidents Obama and Bush occasionally made such calls.

This all comes after a turbulent week, set off by Trump's claim to have been more involved than previous presidents in contacting military families. The president even involved his chief of staff, John Kelly, himself a retired Marine general who lost a son in the war in Afghanistan, in a feud with Florida Representative Frederica Wilson, who said that the president's outreach to a slain U.S. servicemember's family had been gone poorly.

Wilson said a call made to one of families of the four men slain in Niger in early October, Sergeant La David Johnson, ended with the family feeling disrespected. Wilson, a friend of the Johnson family, was present when the call was made. Johnson's mother, Cowanda Jones-Johnson, confirmed Wilson's account, telling The Washington Post that the president had  shown "disrespect" for her son and family with statements that her son "must have known what he signed up for." Many questions remain about how Johnson became separated from the other members of his team.

Some families expressed that they were "disappointed" they had not received a call or letter from Trump, but still others questioned the relevance of the president's actions in the larger scheme of things.

"If that letter or that phone call could bring my son back, I would run from here on foot to Washington, D.C., to get that letter," Sheila Murphy, the mother of Army Specialist Etienne Murphy, who was killed in Syria in May, told MSNBC. "But right now it really doesn't matter who did the greatest thing."

[katmai]

God he's such a putz.

[Ed Anger]

Should have used Fed Ex. UPS sucks.