What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Sheilbh]

no entiendo

Mr Burns' immune system. He's got such vast array of serious illnesses that they each sort of cancel each other out and none can cause him any real harm. They call it Three Stooges' Syndrome.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I kind of agree with Raz's point, the second half. 

Trump was, for four years, a walking attack ad against himself.  And people weren't fazed. 

I see some tentative signs that more and more people are reevaluating their own thinking about Trump, and coming to their own conclusion that they were batshit crazy.

I don't think this organic process is helped a whole lot by Democratic attack ads pointing out how sleazy and stupid Republicans are.

I mean Trump won a lot of suburban votes in 2016 that he lost in 2020. "Not fazed" is not accurate. The mouthbreathing imbeciles of his base were not fazed, but they also lack minds with which to think and reason, so it was never likely that data would change their thoughts.

[Admiral Yi]

I mean Trump won a lot of suburban votes in 2016 that he lost in 2020. "Not fazed" is not accurate. The mouthbreathing imbeciles of his base were not fazed, but they also lack minds with which to think and reason, so it was never likely that data would change their thoughts.

For the four years he was grabbing metaphorical pussies, but we didn't see any real movement in his approval rating until the pandemic hit.  I think your eventual switch voter wasn't fazed.

[Sheilbh]

For the four years he was grabbing metaphorical pussies, but we didn't see any real movement in his approval rating until the pandemic hit.  I think your eventual switch voter wasn't fazed.

But we saw 2018 which was an indicator. His approval rating floated in the low 40s for the entirety of his Presidency. And I don't think it's like things got gradually worse with him. I think week 1 people probably realised - oh this is what he's going to be like as President.

[FunkMonk]

I kind of agree with Raz's point, the second half. 

Trump was, for four years, a walking attack ad against himself.  And people weren't fazed. 

I see some tentative signs that more and more people are reevaluating their own thinking about Trump, and coming to their own conclusion that they were batshit crazy.

Could you give an example or show some of these "tentative signs?" Genuinely curious because I haven't been paying much attention to political news recently.

[Zoupa]

Didn't Trump gain like 7 million more votes compared to 2016

[Admiral Yi]

Could you give an example or show some of these "tentative signs?" Genuinely curious because I haven't been paying much attention to political news recently.

An article in The Economist, last week's I think, talked about goings on at the Southern Baptist annual convention.  Bad, oversimplified summary: rabid Trump guy running against not so much a big fan of Trump guy, chick who had some policy position on women in the church quits.

I think there are also signs in the coverage of Capitol Hill attackers legal proceedings.  Most of what I hear is guys saying Trump made them do it, or they were just tourists who were waived in by the cops, they're not one of the bad ones.  Or just I'm sorry please don't be so harsh.  That's a big move from overturn this fraudulent election, God is on our side.

Or that antiTrump candidate in Texas.  Little bit by little bit.

[grumbler]

Didn't Trump gain like 7 million more votes compared to 2016

More like 11 million more (74 million to 63 million).  15 million more people voted against him in 2020, though.

[Razgovory]

I kind of agree with Raz's point, the second half. 

Trump was, for four years, a walking attack ad against himself.  And people weren't fazed. 

I see some tentative signs that more and more people are reevaluating their own thinking about Trump, and coming to their own conclusion that they were batshit crazy.

I don't think this organic process is helped a whole lot by Democratic attack ads pointing out how sleazy and stupid Republicans are.

I mean Trump won a lot of suburban votes in 2016 that he lost in 2020. "Not fazed" is not accurate. The mouthbreathing imbeciles of his base were not fazed, but they also lack minds with which to think and reason, so it was never likely that data would change their thoughts.

I don't think they are stupid, in fact I believe that intolerance of any criticism of Donald Trump indicates they knew, on at least some level, what sort of person he is.  Cognitive dissonance is a term used in Psychology for when you have two irreconcilable ideas in your head at once.  It causes stress and discomfort until a you reconcilable those ideas.  Example:

"I am good Christian and a Trump supporter"

"Donald Trump is on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women"

The Trump supporter now has to reconcile these two ideas.  They might claim that Trump never actually did what he was bragging about or that tolerating Trump's behavior is acceptable for the greater good, or that the tape was fake. Another path would be for the Trump supporter to conclude that they are not a good Christian.  That second one is not very likely.

Because Trump is an avalanche of obvious awfulness his supporters constantly inundated with cognitive dissonance. This causes quite a bit of stress and to alleviate that stress Trump's supporters become more and more strident in Trump's defense.  Eventually they just block out anything that could tell them bad things about Trump and retreat into fantasy.  Reminding a Trump supporter that  Trump stated that a judge shouldn't be allowed to oversee his case because of his ethnicity will likely cause that person to lash out.  They lash out because you have, in a very real sense, hurt them.

Qanon is an perfect example of this.  Trump promised that should he win the election he would imprison Hillary Clinton.  When Trump was elected he did not live up to his promise and never intended to.  Trump's supporters had to reconcile these two facts and did so by claiming that Trump is going after Clinton but it is in secret.

I think there was another figure in US history where this dynamic was in play: Joseph McCarthy.  McCarthy had fanatical supporters who were just as strident in defending the Senator as Trump's people are today.  I think William F. Buckley's first book was "Joseph McCarthy and his enemies".  The 1930's and 1940's weren't exactly good for the GOP.  The ideology of small government and isolationism pretty much collapsed in those decades.  The idea that their reversals were orchestrated from Moscow was extremely attractive to Republicans in the 1950's.  There was one problem:  McCarthy was an obvious liar.  His lies were inconsistent and it was clear that his list of Communists in the State Department did not exist.  Still people wanted to believe McCarthy's claims and the fact that McCarthy's claims constantly changed made them defend him even more.

[jimmy olsen]

I have no problems attacking GOP for policies that directly harm the working class whites who form their base. That's not controversial.

I also agree it was and is a bad strategy to attack Trump/the GOP for things that Democrats hate, rather than focusing on things that their own supporters would hate, if they understood what was happening.

I think you still need to do a lot of that in order to encourage turnout on your own side.

[Berkut]

Once more I agree with Otto.

Same.

He touches on a point at the end I think is worth re-iterating. Going after Jordan isn't just about hitting the GOP in general, it is about hitting Jim Jordan in particular.

The dude is a piece of shit, regardless of the OSU stuff. This is the guy who has defended Trump's most ourageous claims about election stealing. He is a douchebag who is full on engaged in the slimiest of the GOP tactics - wondering if we should stoop to his level (we should not) when going back after him is crazy. This is a guy who straight out is lying to the American people and KNOWS he is lying to the American people. Being mean (but still honest) with him is completely legit.

[Berkut]

Trump was, for four years, a walking attack ad against himself.  And people weren't fazed. 

In a way I think that was partly what kept his support and still does. You can say anything you want about Trump - but I can't think of any attack that you could really call a surprise. He was, if nothing else, utterly transparent and utterly honest about who he was. He was cruel, corrupt, venal, petty etc - all of those things the attack ads highlighted but he was pretty blatant about it.

That was a point Harris kept making at the start of the Trump Presidency.

All the things to hate about Trump are completely in the open. There is nothing to be learned about him. Secret tapes? Who cares? If someone had an actual tape of Trump pissing on prostitutes....would that tell you ANYTHING about him you did not already know? Of course not.

If someone gets his tax records, and finds out he was (gasp!) lying about his worth, or his obligations to shady Russians, or that he has shell companies setup so Chinese firms can funnel him millions in cash for "rents"....would that come as some kind of surprise to anyone at all? Nope. We all know that is true, we just don't know the specific details.

There is nothing new to be learned about Trump that anyone with half a grain doesn't already know. He is a completely known quantity.

[Malthus]

Trump was, for four years, a walking attack ad against himself.  And people weren't fazed. 

In a way I think that was partly what kept his support and still does. You can say anything you want about Trump - but I can't think of any attack that you could really call a surprise. He was, if nothing else, utterly transparent and utterly honest about who he was. He was cruel, corrupt, venal, petty etc - all of those things the attack ads highlighted but he was pretty blatant about it.

That was a point Harris kept making at the start of the Trump Presidency.

All the things to hate about Trump are completely in the open. There is nothing to be learned about him. Secret tapes? Who cares? If someone had an actual tape of Trump pissing on prostitutes....would that tell you ANYTHING about him you did not already know? Of course not.

If someone gets his tax records, and finds out he was (gasp!) lying about his worth, or his obligations to shady Russians, or that he has shell companies setup so Chinese firms can funnel him millions in cash for "rents"....would that come as some kind of surprise to anyone at all? Nope. We all know that is true, we just don't know the specific details.

There is nothing new to be learned about Trump that anyone with half a grain doesn't already know. He is a completely known quantity.

This is why I think attacks on Trump, and the GOP more generally, are of limited worth.

Everyone already knows they are greedy, hypocritical grifters, who lie with every breath. Saying so, with evidence, simply won't change much. Those who will vote for them tend to have the attitude that either (a) it is all lies (these are the Trump cultist true believers) and so will not be swayed even if you present a mountain of irrefutable proof; or (b) yeah, they are scumbags, but that are our scumbags, necessary to fight off the threats to our rights from liberals and the dark-skinned hordes.

The former you can do nothing about - I have no idea how to reprogram those who are into a cult. The latter, though, can be shifted, by appealing to their self-interest: 'you thought these guys were "your scumbags", but in reality, they are just playing you. They are only out for themselves, and if you follow them, you will be a victim'.

It has never ceased to amaze me how so many poor whites are willing to follow these folks, who do nothing but rip them off and pander to corporate interests. To break that, I think you gotta convince their target audience about this fact. Attacks have been used so freely and politicians have grown so shameless (and the audience so habituated to attacks) that attacks have lost much of their sting.

The old saying was that where there is smoke, there is fire. Perhaps deliberately, the GOP habit of attacking all the time has raised so much smoke that actual fires are now hard to see.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Didn't Trump gain like 7 million more votes compared to 2016

He did, but Biden also turned out a huge amount of votes vs what Hillary did as well, such that Trump did worse in the suburbs. If you go county through county through states like Ohio and Texas where Trump got a lot of this 7 million was small towns and rural communities (small towns often get overlooked I think in the national zeitgeist, but have more population in them than true rural areas, but in red states smaller towns between 5-30,000 population are often quite red.) Trump also increased his margin in almost every "urban center" with high minority populations, from Cleveland to Cincinnati to Atlanta to Philadelphia etc. That's why it's actually funny he focused so much of his ire on these higher black population cities--he actually improved both his vote totals and vote share in those cities. Now, he still lost them by large margins, but Trump had a genuine increase in votes among inner city minorities vs his 2016 results.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I fundamentally disagree all of the GOP is in a cult, because just like the Dems the GOP is a coalition party. I think attacks on the GOP help undermine the coalition, the GOP is barely able to hold on to any power at all and is aided in this by our too-minoritarian constitutional structure, if they lose much more of their coalition they are fucked in bad ways.

For example look at the segments of the GOP coalition that are likely vulnerable to messaging:

- The white middle class. The years 2017-2020 demonstrated that this voting bloc in fact is capable of changing its mind on Trump, as we saw Trump's support with them decline in the suburbs. White people with college degrees shifted away from Trump in a genuine change of opinion.

- The corporate class. There may not be a ton of "votes" of people who are upper level corporate managers or Wall Street types, but there's a hell of a lot of money and power. This group has been able to ignore a lot from the GOP in service of tax cuts and deregulation, but there's evidence that the actual men involved are getting tired of the GOP embrace of bigotry, and some are putting their money where their mouth is.

- Low propensity working class whites. People may not believe we can move these voters because they are part of a "cult", but they really aren't. Some of them did become part of a Trump cult, and some of them have been reliable anti-minority motivated voters for years. But the last 5 years saw a lot of these voters show up at the polls for two Presidential elections but not much else. The fact that they are low propensity means they frequently don't bother to vote, and that there is probably messaging that can get them back to not voting. Again, we don't have to turn them into Democrats, just getting them to stay home is a victory.

- Hispanic men. Trump lost Hispanics across the board, but improved a lot with Hispanic men, this improvement also likely swept several Republicans into House Seats and saved some Senate seats. But these men in my opinion are not as locked into party affiliation as white male conservatives. I think they were heavily influenced by the massive wave of far right messaging in Hispanic radio and media in 2020, and Biden's campaign didn't counter this at all. The charitable view is he felt that he wasn't going to win Texas / Florida anyways so didn't see the need to combat it, but the more likely view is it was just a blunder and they didn't get into the fight like they should have. Tons of surrogates in this group have really been critical of the Biden campaign basically doing nothing to counter conservative messaging at this group. I see no reason to conclude that "doing something" won't have more of an effect than "doing nothing" on these people.

- White Evangelicals. What? These are the most hardcore of all Republicans! But actually Obama built an outreach organization to them and over performed typical Democrats with them by 5 points in both of his elections. This is the kind of squeeze play Carville is talking about, you're not trying to turn them from being 80/20 Republicans into 50/50, but if you can get them to 76% GOP or 75% GOP, that's a lot of votes you have to find somewhere else if you're a Republican. And the evidence that they can be swayed is strong--they actually have been swayed in relatively recent history. If you follow the stuff around Christianity Today (the "smart" evangelical magazine), there's more reservations about Republicanism in the evangelical base than might be assumed. Like I said, you're never going to flip them, flipping them isn't the goal. Just peel a few percent off.