2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Liep]

Hey, has Trump just gone 24 hours without saying something either stupid or obnoxious?

I think it's more, he even caved on Ryan. Somebody must've managed to turn him off.

[Legbiter]

Hey, has Trump just gone 24 hours without saying something either stupid or obnoxious?

Nope, he seems chill for now, relatively speaking.



Hillary almost referred to Trump as her husband and said something about her brain short-circuiting.

http://nypost.com/2016/08/05/clinton-mistakenly-refers-to-trump-as-her-husband/

[Sheilbh]

But doesn't Trump actually do that? A lot of his stances, from immigration, to international trade/globalism, to anti-corporatism seems to be an expression of these sentiments. Yes, he is hamfisted and megalomaniac, but he is representing this kind of big government populist "conservatism" that you talk about - which is partially why he is attacked so viciously by the elites.

To an extent. The reason I doubt that Trumpism has staying power is that he only has stances and poses rather than policies. McGovern and Goldwater and all the other outsiders who seized their parties nominations were party men - Trump isn't - with a network of supporters - which he hasn't got - and intellectual heft behind his ideas - which is lacking. It's those things that made their influence last even once the party reasserted control. I genuinely think the George W Bush who got elected in 2000 should be looked at again by Republicans, I think that's the model of conservatism they need to embrace to win again and to get back in touch with their base.

I also don't necessarily think the GOP needs to go full Trump to get back in touch with their base but I remember reading a piece in 2012/3 about how 20% of Republican voters supported cutting social security or Medicare. One third supported immigration reform while the remaining two thirds supported more deportations/enforcement. And yet in the post-mortems everyone coalesced around the need to be more aggressive on entitlement reform while dealing with immigration reform to pick up Hispanic votes. Then Cantor lost his primary because of immigration but the consensus was still much the same. It goes without saying that the very wealthy who donate to the GOP benefit from cuts to entitlements and from immigration, the benefits of both are less clear to the lower middle class and working class voters the GOP has really locked in in the last while.

My point is that this sentiment will not disappear if he is defeated - quite the contrary. America will have its "Brexit" vote sooner or later, and while Trump is a bufoon, I think he could at least be somewhat controllable as the POTUS - the next election cycle's candidate will be worse.

Disagree on Trump. As I say I suspect next election's candidate will be an anti-Trump in the same way as the GOP and Dems went from Goldwater and McGovern to Nixon and Clinton. I think the GOP will move but as I say I think it's tough to predict how, but I agree the sentiment won't disappear - the Republican candidate is a man who has repudiated every part of the post-Reagan Republican model, that is a big deal.

Also Brexit's nowhere near as bad as electing Trump

[Razgovory]

Yeah. I find people who think that if Hillary wins, things will just go back to normal, extremely naive. The phenomenon that propelled Trump to win the GOP nomination will get stronger and stronger each election cycle, and the person it will bring up will be nastier and nastier.

I don't think so.  Trumps voters are old.  We can simply wait them out.

[Admiral Yi]

What's your theory for how he won if his support is mainly distinct from the base? Sort-of Corbyn-style selectorate entryists?

Crossover vote, a-political types showing up, that sort of thing.

[Sheilbh]

What's your theory for how he won if his support is mainly distinct from the base? Sort-of Corbyn-style selectorate entryists?

Crossover vote, a-political types showing up, that sort of thing.

If that's the case things are more dangerous for the GOP - and it is like Corbyn/Brexit. My theory is he's speaking to something a large part of the base have felt for a long time (and there was never one establishment candidate against him and they didn't attack him enough because they wanted his votes).

I'd worry for the GOP if he really has excited enough people to effectively take over the Republican party.

[Berkut]

It's ironic that you don't even see that the "shit-show" is a *direct* result of the warping of the system in question. Go Hillary!

If the shit-show was a direct result of Hillary I don't think it would be an international phenomenon stretching around the world. This is a populist revolt against globalization and modern technology and the values (and social problems) that go with them in modern society.

It is bizarre that you can quote me, and then immediately respond to my statement with a strawman that is not at all what is said in the very sentence that you quote.

[Berkut]

Yes, one party has become decidedly establishment, but is still interested in governing and getting it agenda accomplished.  The other has simply driven itself off a cliff, but has been heading that way and accelerating for 8 years.

There are plenty of years when one can make the equivalency that both parties are at fault for the broken "system", but not this year.

I disagree, albeit not completely.

Both parties (really not even the parties per se, but the system in general) are at fault for the systemic failures.

One party has gone crazy and driven off the cliff, that part is true. The other party just nominated someone who is sane, responsible, and reasonable, but also a product and driver of that very system. She is the obvious choice between the two of them of course, but I don't see any reason to think she will do more than the bare minimum she can to fix the system. She is where she is because of the system, and she owes her position to the people who put her there, which most certainly is NOT the people voting her into office.

[Razgovory]

Never took Berkut for a red.

[Valmy]

It's ironic that you don't even see that the "shit-show" is a *direct* result of the warping of the system in question. Go Hillary!

If the shit-show was a direct result of Hillary I don't think it would be an international phenomenon stretching around the world. This is a populist revolt against globalization and modern technology and the values (and social problems) that go with them in modern society.

It is bizarre that you can quote me, and then immediately respond to my statement with a strawman that is not at all what is said in the very sentence that you quote.

How is it bizarre? You said there was a shitshow that was a direct result of warping of the system and then proclaimed that was Hillary's doing. If you did NOT mean that then you sure went out of your way to make it look like that was what you meant so why add the 'Go Hillary!' at the end then? Just to confuse and obfuscate your meaning?

And in any case I think I did address something you did say. You think the shitshow is because the system has been warped. I think the shitshow is because people are upset about things nobody knows how to fix.

[Berkut]

No, I did not proclaim that was Hillary's doing. The idea is just stupid. The system is warped because of one person?


"Go hillary" was simply sarcastically saying "Go Hillary" as in "Go Hillary - even though we know you won't do anything to fix the system because you have zero interest in fixing the system that has got you were you are today".

And in any case I think I did address something you did say. You think the shitshow is because the system has been warped. I think the shitshow is because people are upset about things nobody knows how to fix.

Those two sentences are hardly mutually exclusive.

[Valmy]

One party has gone crazy and driven off the cliff, that part is true. The other party just nominated someone who is sane, responsible, and reasonable, but also a product and driver of that very system. She is the obvious choice between the two of them of course, but I don't see any reason to think she will do more than the bare minimum she can to fix the system. She is where she is because of the system, and she owes her position to the people who put her there, which most certainly is NOT the people voting her into office.

Again she voted to reform the system. The Supreme Court shot that down. Just saying.

[Berkut]

One party has gone crazy and driven off the cliff, that part is true. The other party just nominated someone who is sane, responsible, and reasonable, but also a product and driver of that very system. She is the obvious choice between the two of them of course, but I don't see any reason to think she will do more than the bare minimum she can to fix the system. She is where she is because of the system, and she owes her position to the people who put her there, which most certainly is NOT the people voting her into office.

Again she voted to reform the system. The Supreme Court shot that down. Just saying.

Yeah, I hear this a lot. There was this one vote, and it didn't work, so I guess that excuses everyone from trying to do anything ever again. Because that was the only possible lever that exists to address a systemic problem.

Didn't work, too bad, I guess we just have to live with a broken system and keep taking millions from the uber rich to "speak" at their little meetings and vote how they want us to!

[Valmy]

No, I did not proclaim that was Hillary's doing. The idea is just stupid. The system is warped because of one person?

'Texas won the Rose Bowl. Go Vince Young!' implies that one statement is connected to the other. So what did you mean exactly?

[Valmy]

Yeah, I hear this a lot. There was this one vote, and it didn't work, so I guess that excuses everyone from trying to do anything ever again. Because that was the only possible lever that exists to address a systemic problem.

Didn't work, too bad, I guess we just have to live with a broken system and keep taking millions from the uber rich to "speak" at their little meetings and vote how they want us to!

Well she hasn't even been in office since the Citizen United decision. Ok you are going on the speaking engagements thing. Well you will certainly not get any argument from me that that should be reformed. I think you are being just a little puritanical about it but hey whatever.