1. Hey Guest,

    Are you handy with Photoshop? Do you feel the DLP Anakin logo is tired and old? Do you want to win a special as of yet undetermined prize? Join the DLP Banner Photoshop Competition! Fame, fortune, and the respect of your peers await those that enter. Sadness, despair, and a deep self-loathing await those that do not.

    Enter the competition.
    Dismiss Notice

The Trumperium 2: Caesar by the Pussy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jon, Jun 15, 2017.

  1. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    188
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    I agree, mostly, with @T3t. Coates has some very good points in his piece, but his flaw is seeing everything through the lens of racism, regardless of what the topic is.

    As he points out himself, Trump got a similar share of the electorate as did Romney in 2012, even though Obama won by a larger share. The only conclusion, therefore, is that Trump didn't win because some magical confluence of racists voted for him, but that Hillary lost because people didn't vote for her.

    Also, if Trump was the first explicitly racist candidate who won on that racism, I'll eat my hat; has he never heard of Woodrow Wilson?
     
  2. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    682
    High Score:
    1,802
    While Wilson was a massive racist, that wasn't a major plank in his presidential campaign. The Election on 1912 was almost entirely centered on economics and the Progressive movement, while 1916 was heavily focused on World War I. Really, if you want a good example of electing presidents on racism, you'd be better off picking someone like Buchanan who ran and won on a platform that was so pro-slavery it supported the idea invading and conquering Cuba to make it a new slave state. Besides, most of the presidents in US history (or anyone else's) wouldn't look too good when judged by modern race relations standards.

    I'd also say that Trump based a lot of the racial side of his campaign around careful language that appealed to racists, but he was careful to avoid being explicitly racist himself. He never went on stage to speak about how non-whites are inherently inferior, or laud his own pure Aryan genetic heritage while railing against an evil zionist conspiracy. He even tried to court minority voters and talk about how good they (even if it was mostly meant to make more moderate whites feel slightly less uncomfortable with the idea of voting for him). What he did in the campaign certainly involved appealing to racist voters, but it fell well short of explicit racism.
     
  3. Oment

    Oment The Betrayer

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,616
    Considering explicit racism probably doesn't poll well with the focus groups, I'm not overly surprised by that last bit.

    From the department of 'rather not', Biden's daughter believes her father to be considering a run for president in 2020.

     
  4. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    682
    High Score:
    1,802
  5. Mordecai

    Mordecai Drunken Scotsman Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Messages:
    371
    Location:
    Scotland
    High Score:
    3,485
    Random question re Biden. Do you think he'd have had an easier time against Trump than Clinton did? I know that the GOP had spent a lot of time and energy building up routes to attack Clinton, but could they not have attacked Biden on everything related to Obama?
     
  6. Oment

    Oment The Betrayer

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,616
    That it is not a huge surprise sadly doesn't take away from the reality of it all; that Biden is 78 on Inauguration Day in 2021. As much as I believe Biden to be someone who could conceivably create a coalition that cuts very directly at a(n arguably overemphasised in commentary) part of Trump's base, age is a factor that I cannot unsee. Septuagenarians in the White House, to me, seem like a beacon for age-related illnesses to strike, even for a man as ostensibly spry as Biden currently is.

    The job ain't easy and all that.
     
  7. Sauce Bauss

    Sauce Bauss Order Member DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    890
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    You might not be familiar, but Hillary Clinton has held a special place in American politics ever since her husband became President. She is a unique figure in the public sphere without any clear analogues. The hatred for her had over twenty years to build, with conservatives having made that decision back during Bill's presidency, and half the Democrats having done the same.

    Bill, and by extension Hillary, are seen as traitors to many liberals. Or, rather than liberals, I should say progressives. They are the icons of the Neo-Liberal wing of the party, that believes in things like rational trade policy and foreign policy. This is viewed as a betrayal of progressive values, and can be best viewed in light of Bernie Sanders' campaign. His was a return to the more socialist, protectionist, unionist history of the party. Hillary was in favor of the TPP, lest we forget.

    The only people who hated Obama, for the most part, were the conservatives and the truly radical on the left. Hillary was subject to not just the hate that the right has for Obama and all Democrats, but to the hate that her own side had for her husband's policies, her own, and then the perceived unfairness of the primary process.

    Joe Biden would be president today had he run. The election could have been swung by 60,000 votes, and without the legacy of the Clinton's and Hillary's unfortunate email troubles, he would have won handily.

    Edit: This also ignores the unfortunate racial policies of her husband's tenure, the sexism aspect, her own lack of charisma, and the distaste many Americans hold for political dynasties. Funnily enough, Bill does not suffer from the legacy of his own tenure as much as Hillary does.
     
  8. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    188
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    Biden was who I wanted to back for the Presidency back in 2015. Sadly, he didn't run; he likely would have won. He embodied the best parts of Neo-Liberalism's rationalism with the grounding in working-class progressivism.

    His age doesn't really matter to me; nor does it matter to most of the electorate (Trump is in his 70s). So long as he's healthy enough to serve and has a good head on his shoulders, it makes little difference. Besides, that's what the Vice Presidency is for.
     
  9. Xiph0

    Xiph0 Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    8,838
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    Yes, Bernie's crowd would've voted for Biden as would a decent chunk of what went for Trump ultimately. He would've won.
     
  10. ASmallBundleOfToothpicks

    ASmallBundleOfToothpicks Professor

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2010
    Messages:
    435
    Location:
    Tir-Na-Nogth
    I dunno, it strikes me that Biden shares many of Hillary's vulnerabilities- PAC money, Washington insider, pro TPP, interventionist, etc., etc. Since he never really came out with a platform, we'll never know if he could have taken it from Trump. I don't think he'd have been able to get the "It's Her Turn!" vote that Hillary had locked up though.

    Speaking as someone who floats near that "far left" bubble that people call the Bernie Bros, the vast majority of them voted for Hillary if there was even the slightest chance of their state swinging to Trump. To the best of my knowledge, the only Bernie voters that went to Trump were the registered Republicans who voted for him in the primary. That crew wouldn't have voted for Biden, since he is a partisan. It wasn't that many, though. More Hillary voters from 2008 went for McCain than Sanders voters in 2016 went to Trump.

    So I guess I look at the polling data at the time which had Sanders handily crushing Trump, the fact that Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the US now, that there is majority support from the US populace for his Medicare for All bill, and then I kind of have to laugh at Hillary Clinton's persecution fantasy.

    This is the groupthink that got us Trump in the first place.
     
  11. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    682
    High Score:
    1,802
    I don't think Biden could've possibly topped the massive amount of baggage Hillary brought into the race, and that was what really hurt her campaign. Biden was certainly a Washington insider, but he didn't have the gigantic Clinton machine, or the fresh wave of e-mail scandals to remind everyone how scandal-prone the last Clinton presidency was. Not to mention Hillary always had a huge public image problem from her days as First Lady that she never really shook. Plus, as Sauce mentioned, the whole issue of it coming across as a dynastic thing. The only candidate in the race you could argue as more of an Insider was Jeb Bush (I know in the run-up to the election, I heard plenty of complaining that we might end up with up with Bush III vs Clinton II).

    The real problem with Sanders supporters (at least in my anecdotal experience) and a lot of other Dems who didn't like Hillary wasn't them defecting to Trump, but them not turning out to vote at all. As many have noted, the election swung far more on Hillary's low turnout than Trump getting a huge number of votes. I doubt any other candidate would've been as divisive: opinions on the Clintons in the Democratic Party are sharply split, and the only reason she didn't face stronger opposition in the primaries was the sheer overwhelming might of the Clinton machine. By the time Biden was ready to run Hillary had so many resources, donors, and endorsements locked down that there was no space for him to get started. The reason the only candidate who mounted a remotely decent challenge to Hillary was the one whose main strength lay outside the establishment is that Hillary had firmly locked the Dem leadership down before the campaign officially started.

    Granted, when it comes to talking about hypothetical what-if campaigns there are way too many factors we can't account for. What Biden or Bernie's campaign strategy would've been, how he would have done in debates and public appearances, etc. And god only knows how Trump's tactics would've changed if he was up against a different opponent.
     
  12. ASmallBundleOfToothpicks

    ASmallBundleOfToothpicks Professor

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2010
    Messages:
    435
    Location:
    Tir-Na-Nogth
    You're still missing the fundamental point: By and large, Bernie's platform is resonating. He's actively trying to pass the bills that were the cornerstones of his campaign, and he's getting public support from Dems. Sanders is actively leading. What has Hillary done?

    She's got a book. I'm listening to it right now and it is hilarious. The best joke is the one on the cover; that punchline cracks me up.

    Why on earth should they have voted for Hillary? What has she done since the election to actually improve the lives of the American people? You can continue the circle jerk about how Hillary, or Biden, or Kasich, or fucking Vermin Supreme could have triangulated better to win in the general. It won't go anywhere, because the stronger general election candidate was Bernie Sanders. He had the fewest vulnerabilities, the stronger platform, the record of commitment, the crossover appeal, experience working in a hostile congress, and he could hammer every other candidate (except Stein) on corruption. Trump especially, since he's actively participated in pay-to-play politics.

    You're acting like the problem is with Bernie voters not falling into line, when the DNC simply gave them no reason to believe that they'd honor any of the compromise positions. Hell, they've straight up admitted to running a rigged primary in court. Right now, Trump is actively demonstrating why we need to deal with the rampant corruption, why we need election reform, and the hard line progressives are actively using Trump to solidify their base. The Republicans are fighting among themselves, separating into the Tea Party elements and the more moderate corporatists- just like the Dems are separating along the progressive and corporatist lines.

    The key thing about this is that from the hard line progressive's perspective, this is a net positive. They can easily say: Yep, it's going to suck for two years. But we can use this time to take 2018, and then 2020. The strategy is sound, and I think some of the savvier Dems are picking up on which way the wind is blowing. The dumber ones are taking part time teaching gigs at Brown University. :p
     
  13. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    188
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    ...I think if the past year has taught us anything, it's that you should want your president to be an 'Insider'. If you want someone to manage the government, it should be someone with experience in managing the government.

    --
    My problem with Bernie is that he has good bumper sticker slogans, but they're usually bad policies. Medicare for All? Sounds nice, probably not a good idea; Public Option is a better one, because it crowds out profit-incentivized insurers while still increasing the level of market competition, something Government-only healthcare does not do. Free College? Terrible idea, there's no clear way to pay for that, and even if there was, I don't want it. $15 minimum wage? Great for NYC and SF and LA; bad for most other market localities where the cost of living doesn't warrant it. Etc.

    We're not corporatists, by the way, we're Liberal realists. Policies grounded in reality are better than idiotic promises we can't keep, something Trump is learning.
     
  14. Agayek

    Agayek Dark Lord

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,984
    I feel the need to point out that in no way was Sanders definitively a stronger GE candidate. Really, all the Republicans would have had to do is put together half a dozen attack ads splicing together the clips of Sanders praising breadlines and Venezuela, and his time spent in the USSR, and it'd functionally disqualify him in a solid 30ish states.

    He might well have won against Trump, I'm honestly not sure there; Trump is historically unpopular, but against literally anyone else, Sanders doesn't have the slightest chance.
     
  15. ASmallBundleOfToothpicks

    ASmallBundleOfToothpicks Professor

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2010
    Messages:
    435
    Location:
    Tir-Na-Nogth
    First of all, I feel the need to objectively point out that by the numbers, based on aggregate polling, yes, he was the stronger candidate.
    SOURCE:https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html
    SOURCE: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    Second, Hillary tried that attack on him, and it didn't stick. 'Socialist' doesn't have the same stigma it once did outside partisan circles, which at this point makes up most of the country. The USSR isn't the boogeyman it once was. And ultimately, it's not about the man, it's about the platform he proposed. Simply put, it's a platform the US supports. He's got examples of what he wants working across Europe.

    Third, the Republican field, though dense, was exceptionally weak. I mean, Ted Cruz was the next in line after Trump.
    This guy: https://apnews.com/28d236513f534d5385a3d51360e5cbf5

    I'm not a die hard supporter of Sanders, but the main issue no-one could touch him on was corruption, which I think was one of the two big issues of the campaign, the other being the economy.
     
  16. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    188
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810

    Clearly you haven't heard about his wife.
     
  17. Solfege

    Solfege High Inquisitor DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    520
    Location:
    East Coast & the South
    Not to really get involved here, but I just wanted to point out that the polling displayed on RCP across all those pollsters, and so frequently paraded by pro-Sanders voters, is objectively invalid. You cannot take one-on-one polling as representative when the subjects exist against a broad field of candidates in separate arenas. The context is wrong, it says nothing about a true head-to-head contest.

    I'd not have bothered on these polls until the field had narrowed down to the general election, the candidates placed side by side in debate. Attack ads and campaigns oriented against each other. Voters' headspaces will be more appropriately placed then. But excessive data/red herring serves as well as anything to generate clicks in media.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2017
  18. Agayek

    Agayek Dark Lord

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,984
    Among people voting in Democrat primaries, absolutely.

    Among the 10-15% of the general population that are largely politically ignorant and effectively decide every Presidential election though? Not a chance in hell.
     
  19. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    682
    High Score:
    1,802
    I'm not sure why you quoted my post, since everything you said is almost completely unrelated to what I posted.
     
  20. ASmallBundleOfToothpicks

    ASmallBundleOfToothpicks Professor

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2010
    Messages:
    435
    Location:
    Tir-Na-Nogth
    That would be what we call a political smear job. If you want to talk politics, please do your due diligence. This should help put things into perspective- SOURCE:http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/29/politics/jane-sanders-burlington-college/index.html

    Suffice to say, if allegations are enough make someone corrupt, then every other candidate in the 2016 election was objectively more corrupt.

    Because you're looking at it backwards. You talk about the problem of "Bernie Sanders voters" not coming out to vote, when the problem wasn't with the voters, it was with Clinton. Why should they have voted for Clinton? At the rate Trump is going, they'll be able to leverage this into taking over the Democratic party. Trump is everything they want in an easy political opponent. Clinton would have allowed the really scary people (from their perspective) on the right to do the same to the Republican party.

    Hell, it's not even really about Bernie- it's the ideas he put forth. When considered against the rest of the world, it's not even particularly novel. Bernie is a left leaning centrist.

    @Agayek and @Solfege: You're correct that the numbers are hardly a guarantee, but Clinton didn't even really have those in her favor. However, you also are assuming that Bernie's connection to socialism wouldn't poll well with independents, which it did, and which make up 42% of registered voters in the US. Clinton trailed quite a bit in that department.