Donald Trump

[arfurclue]

Exactly. Trump is a force of nature in political terms, and will be remembered as such long after we've passed out of this bubble. You don't win two of the biggest election shocks in US history without having the ability to connect and energise a base. And people can whinge about Trump voters but the fact of the matter is that they exist and their vote counts just as much as anybody elses.

There's two ways to stop an oncoming frieght train; you either step out of the way and let it ride or smash your own freight train into it and see where it lands. Clinton was the first option - trying to ignore/rise above the hysteria of it. Sanders was the second, bringing his own train to the party to smash into the Trump base. I still think he could have won and still think he could win in 2020

Am enjoying your writing. Is it possible that there is a third option - of using the strength of the freight train against itself? Instead of fighting the train, take over the tracks and guide it where you want?

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I think people are discounting the voter registration shenanigans in places like North Dakota and Georgia. Also, polling stations being closed in predominantly Democrat voting areas in some districts, meaning most voters now have to drive to their nearest polling station; this immediately disenfranchises poor voters.

With Russian cyber meddling in the Mid-term election (charges brought recently), plus the House GOP refusal to boost spending on Election cyber security measures, and it starts to look like the tables are being unfairly tilted towards Republicans.

Trumps victory in 2016 is only stunning if you ignore the fact that it is highly likely to be proven that Russia interfered in that election in favour of Trump.

 

[Damocles]

I think people are discounting the voter registration shenanigans in places like North Dakota and Georgia. Also, polling stations being closed in predominantly Democrat voting areas in some districts, meaning most voters now have to drive to their nearest polling station; this immediately disenfranchises poor voters.

With Russian cyber meddling in the Mid-term election (charges brought recently), plus the House GOP refusal to boost spending on Election cyber security measures, and it starts to look like the tables are being unfairly tilted towards Republicans.

Trumps victory in 2016 is only stunning if you ignore the fact that it is highly likely to be proven that Russia interfered in that election in favour of Trump.

Because this argument serves no purpose. We can sit talking conspiracies all day long but until something is actually proven then it's boring and irrelevant, so can be ignored for other more relevant topic matters like the idea that millions of people voted for Trump because they wanted to and what it is that the Dems can do about that

 

[Damocles]

Am enjoying your writing. Is it possible that there is a third option - of using the strength of the freight train against itself? Instead of fighting the train, take over the tracks and guide it where you want?

Sure but the problem with that is momentum. Trump has been predicted to burn himself out into a fiery mess since before he even ran for the Republican primaries yet he never has. He's a smart operator and understands how the media works, and what coverage does to the populace mindset.

Trying to put Trump on a road to disaster isn't going to work because he has the ability to turn his failings into boasts. The change of direction/guidance would have to come from within the Republican Party but as long as they're winning and getting to stack the Supreme Court then ultimately they don't care too much. They'll take a long term view that Trump was a necessary evil. Lindsey Graham and others are now beginning to copy his rhetorical style because they see the success it is having.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Because this argument serves no purpose. We can sit talking conspiracies all day long but until something is actually proven then it's boring and irrelevant, so can be ignored for other more relevant topic matters like the idea that millions of people voted for Trump because they wanted to and what it is that the Dems can do about that

It's boring and irrelevant whether it's proven or not. That's the problem. If it's proven the counter will be "So what? XXX did it in YYY." Same tactic Nixon used. But unlike Nixon it won't shake his base. Nixon was never a cult.

 

[Damocles]

Sure. "The left is beaten." The only issue the left has is "We hate Trump." Which actually means "We hate America and Americans", because Trump is the average American, writ large. "He has no ideaology except getting the job done." "The difference between citizens who hate Mr. Trump and those who can live with him—whether they love or merely tolerate him—comes down to their views of the typical American."

Here's a good one: "Granted, Mr. Trump is a parody of the average American, not the thing itself. To turn away is fair. But to hate him from your heart is revealing. Many Americans were ashamed when Ronald Reagan was elected. A movie actor? But the new direction he chose for America was a big success on balance, and Reagan turned into a great president."

Ronald Reagan was the governor of the nation's largest state and the 7th largest economy in the world before he was President.

In short, it's an editorial that if it were a painting would be one of Stalin, beaming, leading out in front of a mass of adoring workers carrying sacks and sickles.

Yeah that's mostly nonsense. The one thing that I agree with though is that Trump is the parody of the average American.

Or that Trump is what some Americans think Americans are and should be. Brash, cocky, arrogant, forceful, outwardly successful, bombastic, patriotic, etc.

It's a bit Plato's caveish this, but Trump is the shadow of the American Dream. It's not the reality of what it was, just an darkened and slightly magnified version of it for people who aren't able to see the truth/substance/reality of the concept.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Sure but the problem with that is momentum. Trump has been predicted to burn himself out into a fiery mess since before he even ran for the Republican primaries yet he never has. He's a smart operator and understands how the media works, and what coverage does to the populace mindset.

Trying to put Trump on a road to disaster isn't going to work because he has the ability to turn his failings into boasts. The change of direction/guidance would have to come from within the Republican Party but as long as they're winning and getting to stack the Supreme Court then ultimately they don't care too much. They'll take a long term view that Trump was a necessary evil. Lindsey Graham and others are now beginning to copy his rhetorical style because they see the success it is having.

Can we stop with the euphemisms and call them what they are -- lies? "He lies and does not care that he lies, nor what the consequences are."

The reason he's been predicted to burn out in a fiery mess is that, historically, one can only lie so much before people stop believing you, and most people don't like nor trust people they believe lie frequently.

That this hasn't happened reveals a lot, as I have detailed often: the depth of the pain felt by the disenfranchised who support him, their desperation, the cognitive dissonance they are willing to overlook in order to feel some strength again, the weakness of their options, and the fact that some (some, I said) of his supporters are amoral, evil or uneducated.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

It's boring and irrelevant whether it's proven or not. That's the problem. If it's proven the counter will be "So what? XXX did it in YYY." Same tactic Nixon used. But unlike Nixon it won't shake his base. Nixon was never a cult.

Yes - Nixon operated in the world of broad sheet newspapers - Trump is a politician of the twitter age. Facts are not that important, its more about perception.

At the end of the day the GOP majority in the senate is slim. It all hinges on these midterms. If he loses the senate then that starts the momentum the other way. And he will go into the Muller battle on the defensive.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Yes - Nixon operated in the world of broad sheet newspapers - Trump is a politician of the twitter age. Facts are not that important, its more about perception.

At the end of the day the GOP majority in the senate is slim. It all hinges on these midterms. If he loses the senate then that starts the momentum the other way. And he will go into the Muller battle on the defensive.

The GOP won't lose the Senate, Mueller may be lying in thew weeds until after the election, or may have nothing or little, and Damo is right that if the left takes the House the resulting gridlock will be fodder for Trump's finger-pointing, so it's a no-win.

 

[arfurclue]

Sure but the problem with that is momentum. Trump has been predicted to burn himself out into a fiery mess since before he even ran for the Republican primaries yet he never has. He's a smart operator and understands how the media works, and what coverage does to the populace mindset.

Trying to put Trump on a road to disaster isn't going to work because he has the ability to turn his failings into boasts. The change of direction/guidance would have to come from within the Republican Party but as long as they're winning and getting to stack the Supreme Court then ultimately they don't care too much. They'll take a long term view that Trump was a necessary evil. Lindsey Graham and others are now beginning to copy his rhetorical style because they see the success it is having.

I'd agree with a lot of that. What I might be suggesting is more along the lines of putting something on the tracks, so that when the train meets it, it derails itself. Or flicking a signal switch so that it ends up in a siding. Neither of these require much momentum. Do the Democrats have anyone that has the ability to a) operate this way and b) fully exploit this through the media? I'm not so sure they do but it would sure be interesting to witness what would happen if they did. What might be fair to suggest is that the Clinton strategy of 'they go low, we go high' is not so great in a game whose rules appear to have changed. Be interesting to see what comes about in, and after, the mid-terms but yes It seems that the Dems may unwittingly be fuelling Trump's train and don't know what to do about it.