Donald Trump

[Damocles]

That's the thought. I think he'd greatly appeal to the mountain/midwest/non-urban heartland voter.

In a debate, I'd say to him -- "Tell you what, Mr. President -- let's go dove-shooting and have a contest. Whomever bags fewer birds walks away from the election." I'd be kidding, but it would underscore his weakness and my strength.

It echoes Patton and his "me and my tank vs Rommel and his would decide the fate of the war" schtick.

I have no doubt this would work in a fair fight. That's really the thing though, it's about targeting the right groups of people.

One of the interesting things that Labour do over here when they are setting up is that they very rarely go after certain type of Tory voters because they believe it to be wasted energy, instead focusing on a narrower but more swingable group.

Would the pro-gun hunter/outdoorsman dyed in the wool Republican ever not vote Republican?

I don't know. But I'd guess if they're going after anything then white working class men and women is where they need to start

 

[Damocles]

Morgan article on Trump has got some bits I agree with to it:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-disaster.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailus

Well first, the US mainstream media has become the boy that cried wolf.

Their constant collective outrage over every tiny thing Trump says, tweets or does – much of it driven by commercial self-interest - has had the inevitable effect of diluting the impact of that outrage.

Barely a week goes by without some supposed new ‘Trump crisis’ fuelling wall-to-wall cable news coverage and dire predictions of impeachment or even jail time for the President.

Yet within a few days, each ‘administration-threatening scandal’ dissolves into a giant nothing-burger

This is a significant problem in politics everywhere in the Western world at the moment

More significantly, as this poll suggests, it’s also begun to move moderates with no particularly animated view of Trump more to a place of tolerating him.

I haven't looked into the poll myself but this feels true though I can't say if it is.

It’s the same flawed, arrogant and elitist mentality that led to Hillary Clinton branding Trump supporters ‘a basket of deplorables’ in a speech that I still believe did more than anything else to lose her the election.

She never did this but it doesn't really matter in the post truth world of the 2000s. Only that people think she did and I agree that it had a lot to do with the Trump vote, not because of the comment itself but how the Trump campaign started owning it and made a billionaire New York property magnate seem almost anti-establishment which is odd.

Trump clearly believes this caravan will help Republicans in the midterms, and so do I. Expect to see the President down on that border very soon, playing Mr Tough Guy.

I'm not one for conspiracies as regular readers of the thread will know but if somebody told me that the Republicans literally set up this migrant caravan and the timing of it then I'd probably believe it. This is the worst possible thing that could happen at this stage for the Democrats. It's such a powerful visual for the Trump camp to exploit the fears of immigration.

Of course, Trump remains a hugely divisive and polarising figure with a penchant for flying loose with the truth and heavy on the inflammatory rhetoric.

But love him or loathe him, there is no denying that he’s winning.

So once again, I can only advise the Democrats to stop their ridiculously self-defeating state of perpetual Trump outrage and work out how they’re actually going to beat him.

Because right now, Trump’s kicking your a**

This is Corbynesque "he's winning because he's not losing quite as bad" nonsense and I don't agree with either. You either win elections or you lose them. The important phrase in Pyrrhic victories is victory.

Nate Silver puts it at about a 1 in 7 chance of the Republicans and that seems a fair call. Them winning/keeping it seems a mile away still. CNN put this up which is their road to victory but an awful lot of it is ifs and buts and maybes; too much for my liking in terms of prediction models.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/20/politics/the-forecast-republicans-keep-house/index.html

Indeed, it's not too difficult to paint a scenario in which the Republicans maintain control. Let's say Republicans win all the seats where they are favored as well as the seats where Democratic candidate leads by about a point or less in our forecast. That would leave Republicans with 220 seats to Democrats with 215 seats. Now, that's not the most likely scenario, but it's on the table.

You could also imagine a situation in which the polling is off. Let's say there's a systematic polling error, and Democrats only win the House popular vote by 5 percentage points instead of the 8 or so they're currently projected to win by. That too could keep Democrats out of the majority. In the 2014 midterm, such an error did occur.

Perhaps most intriguing is what happens if traditionally Republican voters who are thinking of voting Democratic decide in the final days of the campaign that they're going to vote Republican after all. There's little doubt that President Donald Trump is hoping that will happen given the rhetoric he's used in the last week to rev up the base.
Right now, our forecast has 13 districts (including 9 with Republican incumbents running) where the Democrat is favored to win and the weighted average partisanship (i.e. our measure for how the district has voted in all sorts of elections over the last six year) is greater than 8 points for Republicans.

That means even in a national environment favoring Democrats, these are districts, on average we would think would go Republican. If the 11 of these districts that are currently projected to go Democratic by 4 points or less go the other way, Republicans would hold onto a bare majority.

With US polls, I tend to go with the amount of money raised as a really key indicator of who is going to win. Or at least I think it's probably the most indicative. And that shows a pretty big Dem win.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

It's not a euphemism. I'm not talking about the truth value of what he says, I'm talking about his rhetorical ability.

You seem to have already drawn many conclusions on Trump and Trump supporters. I'm not interested in drawing easy conclusions on such a wide and disparate group of people. I don't have the data and if I did then I'd be selling it for millions rather than posting about it on Bluemoon!

I have on Trump. I've had a few decades to do so.

My view on his supporters and their rationale is far more broad-minded than most people I know, in part because I spend time with his supporters and many don't -- some of my ex-military friends, the farmers and ranchers of northeastern California, the guys who run large real estate development companies, and plenty of others. I think if you look at what I wrote about them you couldn't/wouldn't disagree with it.

 

[Damocles]

I have on Trump. I've had a few decades to do so.

My view on his supporters and their rationale is far more broad-minded than most people I know, in part because I spend time with his supporters and many don't -- some of my ex-military friends, the farmers and ranchers of northeastern California, the guys who run large real estate development companies, and plenty of others. I think if you look at what I wrote about them you couldn't/wouldn't disagree with it.

It's not that I really disagree with this wholesale:

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.

In fact if anything, I agree with most of it - especially the first part. Populists live and die by working class disenfranchisement and it's always the working classes who suffer the most from the lag time of globalism benefits. And as the working classes outnumber the other classes, then well here we are.

Trump appeals to the working classes in the same way that Brexit does and social justice politics does. The working classes see that the system is broken and unfair and they want to do something about it. If you're a black woman then that's calling it patriarchal racism, if you're a white man then that's calling it globalist elitism. It's all the same problem in so far as the working classes outnumber and live significantly harder lives than the middle and upper classes due to the disparity in wealth in our communities. The media and the political class, probably not knowingly, understand that we outnumber them and if they keep us disunited over party politics or race or gender or whatever then we fight between ourselves. I don't blame them personally.

Trump and Brexit and identity politics are the types of things when we have an existential crisis in society. They represent the chaotic rather than the ordered and when people are living in generational struggles for hardship while corporations skip out on billions in tax bills then we believe that introducing chaos into the system is the only remedy. These type of populists are no different from any other revolution that has ever taken place in the past, it's just that now the revolution is on social media and the TV and in the voting booths rather than blood in the streets and decapitations. To me this represents significant progress as a society and a species and we should acknowledge the awe inspiring power that liberal democracy has had on the world to allow such a thing. 200 years ago we'd be fighting in the streets about this stuff.

These ideas are one of the reasons why I genuinely think Sanders could win by the way; he is also a chaotic individual in terms of the energy of his fanbase and the "Dem but not Dem" status that are a bit of an anomaly in US politics. You don't fight political chaos with political order, because chaos will always triumph over order. You fight political chaos with your own political chaos and we end up meeting more in the middle of each other which creates a new political order. It's the Batman and Joker problem; only two distinctly opposite types of chaos gets to keep the order going. You don't put the Joker up against Batman's establishment moral and straight laced Dad because there's only one winner there. Avenatti COULD have been the man because his energy is correct but his style is all wrong. Harris is the perfect candidate for 2004 or possibly 2024 but the times we live in she'd be wasting her shot.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

It's not that I really disagree with this wholesale:




In fact if anything, I agree with most of it - especially the first part. Populists live and die by working class disenfranchisement and it's always the working classes who suffer the most from the lag time of globalism benefits. And as the working classes outnumber the other classes, then well here we are.

Trump appeals to the working classes in the same way that Brexit does and social justice politics does. The working classes see that the system is broken and unfair and they want to do something about it. If you're a black woman then that's calling it patriarchal racism, if you're a white man then that's calling it globalist elitism. It's all the same problem in so far as the working classes outnumber and live significantly harder lives than the middle and upper classes due to the disparity in wealth in our communities. The media and the political class, probably not knowingly, understand that we outnumber them and if they keep us disunited over party politics or race or gender or whatever then we fight between ourselves. I don't blame them personally.

Trump and Brexit and identity politics are the types of things when we have an existential crisis in society. They represent the chaotic rather than the ordered and when people are living in generational struggles for hardship while corporations skip out on billions in tax bills then we believe that introducing chaos into the system is the only remedy. These type of populists are no different from any other revolution that has ever taken place in the past, it's just that now the revolution is on social media and the TV and in the voting booths rather than blood in the streets and decapitations. To me this represents significant progress as a society and a species and we should acknowledge the awe inspiring power that liberal democracy has had on the world to allow such a thing. 200 years ago we'd be fighting in the streets about this stuff.

These ideas are one of the reasons why I genuinely think Sanders could win by the way; he is also a chaotic individual in terms of the energy of his fanbase and the "Dem but not Dem" status that are a bit of an anomaly in US politics. You don't fight political chaos with political order, because chaos will always triumph over order. You fight political chaos with your own political chaos and we end up meeting more in the middle of each other which creates a new political order. It's the Batman and Joker problem; only two distinctly opposite types of chaos gets to keep the order going. You don't put the Joker up against Batman's establishment moral and straight laced Dad because there's only one winner there. Avenatti COULD have been the man because his energy is correct but his style is all wrong. Harris is the perfect candidate for 2004 or possibly 2024 but the times we live in she'd be wasting her shot.

But the black woman can't ever be white, so if she's right, she's screwed. The white man has more options even if he's right.

I actually have a twist on your chaos vs order theory. It's precisely because the lives of the disenfranchised are chaotic that they seek simplicity and order. In a democracy, that means easy, simple answers that stem from binary choice. Like Brexit, or Trump. Or, outside the voting booth, God and Jesus. Order -- one form of it anyway -- has already triumphed.

There's also no guarantee the that the revolution in social media and the voting booths won't eventually find it's way toward blood in the streets. My President is using precisely this rhetoric -- "they're rioting in California" about sanctuary cities, he lied, just yesterday. Ask hardcore gun owners what they would do if guns were made illegal, and the people in blue with tin stars came knocking on their doors.

Politically, I think simplicity triumphs over complexity. I think assigning blame triumphs over accepting responsibility. I think quick and easy triumphs over slow and hard. It's how humans confronted with information overload have to think, especially well-off "Western" humans in democracies with access to technology. Trump has tapped into all that in spades; Clinton never could; I'm not really sure about Sanders.

 

[arfurclue]

Admittedly a pretty puffy piece -- but this is a good overview of the man:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-steve-bullock-2020_us_5b9979a1e4b0511db3e8ddd1

I forgot to note a fairly common-sense perspective on gun control ("common sense" in an American way I mean).

Thanks - was a really interesting read.

 

[arfurclue]

But the black woman can't ever be white, so if she's right, she's screwed. The white man has more options even if he's right.

I actually think the opposite of your chaos vs order theory is true. It's precisely because the lives of the disenfranchised are chaotic that they seek simplicity and order. In a democracy, that means easy, simple answers that stem from binary choice. Like Brexit, or Trump. Or, outside the voting booth, God and Jesus. Order -- one form of it anyway -- has already triumphed.

There's also no guarantee the that the revolution in social media and the voting booths won't eventually find it's way toward blood in the streets. My President is using precisely this rhetoric -- "they're rioting in California" about sanctuary cities, he lied, just yesterday. Ask hardcore gun owners what they would do if guns were made illegal, and the people in blue with tin stars came knocking on their doors.

Politically, I think simplicity triumphs over complexity. I think assigning blame triumphs over accepting responsibility. I think quick and easy triumphs over slow and hard. It's how humans confronted with information overload have to think, especially well-off "Western" humans in democracies with access to technology. Trump has tapped into all that in spades; Clinton never could; I'm not really sure about Sanders.

"I think assigning blame triumphs over accepting responsibility." That would be one way for people to stay feeling disenfranchised/disunited.
"I think quick and easy triumphs over slow and hard." Reminds me of idea in the book 'Slowness' by Milan Kundera - that people slow down to remember, speed up to forget. If people want to forget their troubles, for even just a moment, then speed might give them that. Temporarily perhaps. Slowness with responsibility might bring about entirely different results?
"I think simplicity triumphs over complexity." By simplicity do you mean dumbing down because I'm not sure they're the same thing? I almost think that meant would benefit
from learning to enjoy genuine simplicity - which then gives a strong foundation to add layers of richness and complexity.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

"I think assigning blame triumphs over accepting responsibility." That would be one way for people to stay feeling disenfranchised/disunited.
"I think quick and easy triumphs over slow and hard." Reminds me of idea in the book 'Slowness' by Milan Kundera - that people slow down to remember, speed up to forget. If people want to forget their troubles, for even just a moment, then speed might give them that. Temporarily perhaps. Slowness with responsibility might bring about entirely different results?
"I think simplicity triumphs over complexity." By simplicity do you mean dumbing down because I'm not sure they're the same thing? I almost think that meant would benefit
from learning to enjoy genuine simplicity - which then gives a strong foundation to add layers of richness and complexity.

By the last I meant "of message" I guess -- in political terms, rhetorical terms -- not really dumbing down. Crystallizing to essential detail. Some times it's a blessing, some times a curse.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

OT, but I mentioned God and Jesus being simple answers to complex questions and bringing peace and order to chaotic lives. And some drive their lives down this path. These aren't stupid people -- anyone who can build a $3BB chain of retail stores has to be bright, talented and incredibly hard-working. But the penchant for simple answers -- order -- to complex questions -- chaos -- makes people do the wrong thing some times (and the right thing too). However, there are always those who will see and take advantage of them:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/22/us/bible-museum-fake-scrolls/index.html

 

[Damocles]

But the black woman can't ever be white, so if she's right, she's screwed. The white man has more options even if he's right.

I actually have a twist on your chaos vs order theory. It's precisely because the lives of the disenfranchised are chaotic that they seek simplicity and order. In a democracy, that means easy, simple answers that stem from binary choice. Like Brexit, or Trump. Or, outside the voting booth, God and Jesus. Order -- one form of it anyway -- has already triumphed.

There's also no guarantee the that the revolution in social media and the voting booths won't eventually find it's way toward blood in the streets. My President is using precisely this rhetoric -- "they're rioting in California" about sanctuary cities, he lied, just yesterday. Ask hardcore gun owners what they would do if guns were made illegal, and the people in blue with tin stars came knocking on their doors.

Politically, I think simplicity triumphs over complexity. I think assigning blame triumphs over accepting responsibility. I think quick and easy triumphs over slow and hard. It's how humans confronted with information overload have to think, especially well-off "Western" humans in democracies with access to technology. Trump has tapped into all that in spades; Clinton never could; I'm not really sure about Sanders.

I can't see Trump as any personification of order personally. Not in political terms as he's such a completely different kettle of fish from anybody else who precedes him. I tend to believe that populism is driven by that disenfranchisement added to literally anybody saying something different. It's not a complexity issue for me; I mean, lots of Trump's policies are complex and require shades of grey and lots of Clinton's policies were overly simplistic crap designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator of her base. That type of diversity in complexity is natural for every politician just because they have to have policies on almost every issue imaginable and you can't have well considered opinions on everything.

Oh I understand that blood in the streets is still a possibility and I imagine that gun banning would be a red line for many Americans. But the point is that years previously, historically, we'd already be at that point. People think we're pretty intolerant of each other's opinions now but we're the most tolerant that our species has ever been in the recorded history of our species and our red lines are further away from the centre than anybody else ever.

I think what you said in a later post is where we agree but we've crossed wires. I've referred to Trump as chaotic because he's different from the norm of politicians and that's what people want and where Bernie can succeed. You seem to have interpreted it as his message being chaotic and I'd agree that his message is overall simple and linear.

I get the feeling that we'd argue about this but looking at previous videos of Trump, he could be as wordy and thoughtful as the next person. He was a long term Democrat and seemed to enjoy debates. He has adapted his style since then to be much more boiled down, easier for headlines and tweets. It would be pretty cheeky to call it a "just the facts" approach but you know what I'm getting at; he presents distilled politics in an easily digestible format. That's in message but not presentation.

Where he stands out rhetorically is in his delivery, which is absolutely top notch, untouchable compared to anything I've seen outside of The Rock in WWE. He has a way of endearing pseudo-cynicism with a hint of humour and self deprecation which is incredibly charismatic. I genuinely believe that Trump is one of the few, like Obama and Clinton before him, who can pretty much drag his audience to wherever he needs them to go because they connect to his oratory style so fervently. He's got that Piers Morgan like ability to say things that can be viewed simultaneously as perfectly serious but tongue in cheek. Humour with a hint of self deprecation is a highly effective way of disarming an audience and Trump's got it down to a science. He's a natural in front of his audience rallies and it's no surprise that this seems to me where he's the most comfortable, the most open and has the most fun. It's why he pulls crowds and got a large amount of people voting for him. It's also why the more coverage he gets whether negative or not, the more voters he'll get around.

Trump is a political virus. He feeds off the exposure to others. The only way for the Dems to beat him in a one on one is to get someone who can stand up to him in that type of environment, which for me is Sanders because pretty much everybody else has been rocked fairly easily, or by starving him of oxygen and not covering every word that he says and showing tons of speeches that he does.

I cannot imagine American society picking the second one so it's got to be the first.