Republicans Tire of Winning

[IMPress Polly]

Well I think the more astute among us knew that something at least resembling what happened on Tuesday was coming. You could see it coming in the headlines just about every day. President Trump, Steve Bannon, and the Republican Party seem to honestly believe that the general public is neutral on the Klan and cares far more about "issues" like NFLgate than they do about the prospect of losing their health insurance and dying. And they call Democrats out of touch. :rollseyes: Tuesday's election results should be instructive to those forces, and that's especially true of the elections in Virginia, which were expected to be hotly contested, but weren't.

The Democratic nominee for Virginia's governorship, Robert Northam, acquired 54% of the vote, up from his also-Democratic predecessor's 48% four years ago, leaving his Republican opponent in the dust, nine percentage points behind, in the largest margin of victory for a Democratic gubernatorial candidate in the state since 1985. Likewise, going into Tuesday, Republicans controlled 66 out of the 100 seats in Virginia's House of Delegates (the state-level equivalent of the national House of Representatives), but coming out will control a maximum of 51 instead, with four contests beyond that going to a runoff vote, leaving the Democrats poised to potentially gain overall control and regardless marking the most sweeping partisan shift in the state legislature since Reconstruction. Highlighting specific cases illustrates the populistic character of this outcome:

-Transgender candidate Danica Roem defeated the incumbent Republican state legislator who had boasted that he was the state's "chief homophobe" and sponsored a bill restricting transgender people from using the restrooms corresponding to their gender identity in government buildings.

-A Latina candidate defeated the Republican author of fliers denouncing Latino gang members.

-The Republican whip in the House of Delegates was defeated by a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (which consists of actual socialists, not Bernie Sanders "socialists") who ran as a Democrat.

-Another Republican incumbent was defeated by the boyfriend of a television reporter who was murdered on camera last year, running on a gun control platform.

-11 out of the 15 confirmed Democrat seat pick-ups in Virginia's House of Delegates were won by women against male incumbents.

-Voter turnout in Virginia was the highest in 20 years, up 12 percentage points from 2013.

Both Hillary Clinton's pro-corporate, neoliberal faction of the Democratic Party and the progressive faction around Bernie Sanders saw substantial electoral victories in Virginia, with Clinton's post-election Run for Something group successfully electing 6 out of the 10 candidates they fielded for the House of Delegates and Sanders' post-election group Our Revolution electing 3 out of the 6 candidates they fielded for the House of Delegates as well. Female candidates dominated both groups. Overall though, the Clinton faction made bigger gains due to the level of anger at the president (particularly among the women) emanating from the state's suburbs, which drove a major increase in voter turnout in those parts of the state. The normally center-right white, suburban soccer mom was the principal driver of this electoral outcome.

Virginia governor-elect Robert Northam ran a centrist, Obama-like campaign proposing, above all, to "end the divisiveness...and to end the politics that have torn this country apart", i.e. to speak politely and govern 'from the center' as they say. If that sounds almost exactly like Obama's 2008 campaign revolving around the ostensible merits of bipartisanship, then congratulations, you've figured out the nature of Northam's campaign. On the one side, Northam called for the expansion of Medicaid in Virginia and on the other pledged, in the last week of the campaign, to sign a bill to ban the establishment of sanctuary cities. The nomination of two-time George W. Bush voter Northam had been the preference of the Clintonite neoliberal wing of the party over the Sanders-backed challenger Tom Perrellio, though both worked closely together after the primary contest.

While it is obviously worth noting that, according to exit poll data, 34% of Virginia voters went to the ballot to register opposition to President Trump, as compared with just 16% who said they voted to register support for the president, Republicans and their supporters shouldn't kid themselves into believing that this was simply an anti-Trump vote and not an endorsement Democratic Party politics overall: 51% of voters surveyed said that they had a positive opinion of the Democratic Party, as compared with just 37% who said that they had a positive opinion of the Republican Party. That's pretty clear, as is the fact that the top voting issue on the minds of voters, according to exit poll data, was health care by a lot. 39% described health care as the most important issue they were voting on, which was more than double the next issue, gun policy (on which the voters were evenly divided) at 17%.

New Jersey's contest, in contrast, was considered a foregone conclusion. After enduring what seems like an eternity now of deliberate mismanagement, absentee governance, and broken promises from Chris Christie, not even record-low voter turnout (a situation that normally favors Republicans) could stop the Democrats from both retaking the governorship by a margin of 15 percentage points and further expanding their already-large majorities in both chambers of the state legislature. New Jersey Governor Christie leaves office with a job approval rating of just 14%, which is the lowest in the entire recorded history of governors in this country. Recognizing the favorable situation on their hands, the Democrats nominated their dream candidate for governor, labor advocate Phil Murphy, who leaned hard into proposals like the establishment of a $15/hour minimum wage and restoring the state's financial solvency (intentionally destroyed by the Christie Administration) by hiking taxes on the rich and powerful.

Further evidence of a leftward shift in American attitudes on Tuesday included:

-The Democratic capture of a Republican-held seat in the Washington state Senate, giving the Democrats complete control over the state legislature. As a result of this development, the Democrats now control both the executive and legislative branches of the entire Pacific Coast, including California, Oregon and Washington.

-The approval by Maine voters of a referendum to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act in defiance of their very Trump-like Republican governor, who had vetoed a similar measure passed by the state's legislature.

-The capture by the Democrats of an Upper Peninsula Michigan House seat by more than 20 percentage points in a district that Trump had won by four points.

-Democratic victories in three special elections for the Georgia House of Representatives in districts that had been won by Trump.

-The easy re-election of incumbent Democratic mayors in New York City and Boston, as well as the election of Seattle's first openly lesbian mayor.

It all flies in the face of Breitbart News owner and former Donald Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon's contention that Republicans can win in as far as they lean into the culture wars and sideline economic discussions. It turns out that most Americans don't actually hate everything that is American, from football to Disney, after all, and have these things called needs, not just prejudices and hang-ups. Progressives and liberals shouldn't get ahead of ourselves though. The fact of the matter is that this predominantly suburban surge is something that's likely easy to poke holes in. Paul Ryan is right: a lower tax bill for these people could likely persuade some of them to switch their partisan alignments back the other way. These are not the most reliable of allies.

Still, it is significant, I think, that the white soccer mom has, for now, moved strongly into the Democratic Party's orbit. One suspects that that might have something to do not only with health care policy and not wanting to be seen as racist, but also perhaps something to do with anger over a man who has bragged about sexually assaulting women being the president. We have seen a major upsurge in support for the women's movement this year as a result of that fact, I observe, from the largest demonstration in American history this January (3.4 million marchers in this country alone) to the Me Too movement sweeping across all major American institutions at present and the victories overwhelmingly of female candidates in these recent elections. It is hard to ignore the uptick in women's rights activism specifically that we've seen in America this year, and frankly the matter of who the president is is definitely a major source of that support and mobilization. Perhaps it is time for everyone, including the Republican Party, to take notice of that, and for a certain Roy Moore to withdraw himself from consideration.

[gamewell45]

Well I think the more astute among us knew that something at least resembling what happened on Tuesday was coming. You could see it coming in the headlines just about every day. President Trump, Steve Bannon, and the Republican Party seem to honestly believe that the general public is neutral on the Klan and cares far more about "issues" like NFLgate than they do about the prospect of losing their health insurance and dying. And they call Democrats out of touch. :rollseyes: Tuesday's election results should be instructive to those forces, and that's especially true of the elections in Virginia, which were expected to be hotly contested.

The Democratic nominee for Virginia's governorship, Robert Northam, acquired 54% of the vote, up from his also-Democratic predecessor's 48% four years ago, leaving his Republican opponent in the dust, nine percentage points behind, in the largest margin of victory for a Democratic gubernatorial candidate in the state since 1985. Likewise, going into Tuesday, Republicans controlled 66 out of the 100 seats in Virginia's House of Delegates (the state-level equivalent of the national House of Representatives), but coming out will control a maximum of 51 instead, with four contests beyond going to a runoff vote, leaving the Democrats poised to potentially gain overall control and regardless marking the most sweeping partisan shift in the state legislature since Reconstruction. Highlighting specific cases illustrates the populistic character of this outcome. Transgender candidate Danica Roem defeated the incumbent Republican state legislator who had boasted that he was the state's "chief homophobe" and sponsored a bill restricting transgender people from using the restrooms corresponding to their gender identity in government buildings. A Latina candidate defeated the Republican author of fliers denouncing Latino gang members. The Republican whip in the House of Delegates was defeated by a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (which consists of actual socialists, not Bernie Sanders "socialists") who ran as a Democrat. Another Republican incumbent was defeated by the boyfriend of a television reporter who was murdered on camera last year, running on a gun control platform. 11 out of the 15 confirmed Democrat seat pick-ups in Virginia House of Delegates were won by women against male incumbents. Voter turnout in Virginia was the highest in 20 years, up 12 percentage points from 2013.

Both Hillary Clinton's pro-corporate, neoliberal faction of the Democratic Party and the progressive faction around Bernie Sanders saw substantial electoral victories in Virginia, with Clinton's post-election Run for Something group successfully electing 6 out of the 10 candidates they fielded for the House of Delegates and Sanders' post-election group Our Revolution electing 3 out of the 6 candidates they fielded for the House of Delegates as well. Female candidates dominated both groups. Overall though, the Clinton faction made bigger gains due to the level of anger at the president (particularly among the women) emanating from the state's suburbs, which drove a major increase in voter turnout in those parts of the state. The normally center-right white, suburban soccer mom was the principal driver of this electoral outcome. Governor-elect Robert Northam ran a centrist, Obama-like campaign proposing, above all, to "end the divisiveness...and to end the politics that have torn this country apart", i.e. to speak politely and govern 'from the center' as they say. If that sounds almost exactly like Obama's 2008 campaign revolving around the ostensible merits of bipartisanship, then congratulations, you've figured out the nature of Northam's campaign. On the one side, Northam called for the expansion of Medicaid in Virginia and on the other pledged, in the last week of the campaign, to sign a bill to ban the establishment of sanctuary cities. The nomination of two-time George W. Bush voter Northam had been the preference of the Clintonite neoliberal wing of the party over the Sanders-backed challenger Tom Perrellio, though both worked closely together after the primary contest.

While it is obviously worth noting that, according to exit poll data, 34% of Virginia voters went to the ballot to register opposition to President Trump, as compared with just 16% who said they voted to register support for the president, Republicans and their supporters shouldn't kid themselves into believing that this was simply an anti-Trump vote and not an endorsement Democratic Party politics overall: 51% of voters surveyed said that they had a positive opinion of the Democratic Party, as compared with just 37% who said that they had a positive opinion of the Republican Party. That's pretty clear, as is the fact that the top voting issue on the minds of voters, according to exit poll data, was health care by a lot. 39% described health care as the most important issue they were voting on, which was more than double the next issue, gun policy (on which the voters were evenly divided) at 17%.

New Jersey's contest, in contrast, was considered a foregone conclusion. After enduring what seems like an eternity now of deliberate mismanagement, absentee governance, and broken promises from Chris Christie and the Republicans, not even record-low voter turnout (a situation that normally favors Republicans) could stop the Democrats from both retaking the governorship by a margin of 15 percentage points and further expanding their already-large majorities in both chambers of the state legislature. New Jersey Governor Christie leaves office with a job approval rating of just 14%, which is the lowest in the entire recorded history of governors in this country. Recognizing the favorable situation on their hands, the Democrats nominated their dream candidate for governor, labor advocate Phil Murphy, who leaned hard into proposals like the establishment of a $15/hour minimum wage and restoring the state's financial solvency (intentionally destroyed by the Christie Administration) by hiking taxes on the rich and powerful.

Further evidence of a leftward shift in American attitudes on Tuesday included:

-The Democratic capture of a Republican-held seat in the Washington state Senate, giving the Democrats complete control over the state legislature. As a result of this development, the Democrats now control both the executive and legislative branches of the entire Pacific Coast, including California, Oregon and Washington.

-The approval by Maine voters of a referendum to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act in defiance of the very Trump-like Republican governor, who had vetoed a similar measure passed by the state's legislature.

-The capture by the Democrats of an Upper Peninsula Michigan House seat by more than 20 percentage points in a district that Trump had won by four points.

-The easy re-election of incumbent Democratic mayors in New York City and Boston, as well as the election of Seattle's first openly lesbian mayor.

It all flies in the face of Breitbart News owner and former Donald Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon's contention that Republicans can win in as far as they lean into the culture wars and sideline economic discussions. It turns out that most Americans don't actually hate everything that is American, from football to Disney, after all, and have these things called needs, not just prejudices and hang-ups. Progressives and liberals shouldn't get ahead of ourselves though. The fact of the matter is that this predominantly suburban surge is something that's likely easy to poke holes in. Paul Ryan is right: a lower tax bill for these people could likely persuade some of them to switch their partisan alignments back the other way. These are not the most reliable of allies.

Still, it is significant, I think, that the white soccer mom has, for now, moved strongly into the Democratic Party's orbit. One suspects that that might have something to do not only with health care policy and not wanting to be seen as racist, but also perhaps something to do with anger over a man who has bragged about sexually assaulting women being the president. We have seen a major upsurge in support for the women's movement this year as a result of that fact, I observe, from the largest demonstration in American history (3.4 million marchers in this country alone) this January to the Me Too movement sweeping across all major American institutions at present and the victories overwhelming of female candidates in these recent elections, it is hard to ignore the uptick in women's rights activism that we've seen in America this year, and frankly the matter of who the president is is defintely a source of that mobilization. Perhaps it is time for everyone, including the Republican Party, to take notice of that, and for a certain Roy Moore to withdraw himself from consideration.
I think the pendulum swings both ways in politics and what we could be witnessing is it swinging towards democrats this time.

Politics is such a dirty business and as we all know most, if not all, politicians will tell you whatever you want to hear as long as you pull the lever for them. Then once elected they "forget" to keep their promises.

I also think the quality of the candidates are at an all time low; many of them--due to many skeletons in their closets--would be very poor selections but for some reason, many voters could care less; it's like being fat, dumb and happy until it impacts on them directly. This is not aimed at any particular political party rather it's aimed broadly at all political parties. They all need to clean up their act.

[Crepitus]

In VA the architect of their "bathroom bill" lost his seat to a trans person.

[Chris]

The significance of "Republicans Tire of Winning" depends on if Democrats tire of whining.

[Common]

I believe Polly is right this time, more and more it looks like the republicans are giving away congress. I do disagree on th reason however, its not Trumps fault, its the fault of those republicans that ran as republicans but are democrats. Examples, Flake, Corker, McCain,Powell, Murkowski and others that will vote against and do anything to assure trump fails. In the interim they dont care if they take down the house and senate with him.

Then you have the far right contingency of Rand Paul and Cruz and others that want exactly what they demand and nothing less and between the two factions they are assuring not only trumps failure but the republican parties failure.

If republicans lose the house and senate in 18 it wont be trumps fault, it will be their own.

[Safety]

The significance of "Republicans Tire of Winning" depends on if Democrats tire of whining.

You know, it's not a requirement that anyone has to post in a thread.

[Chris]

You know, it's not a requirement that anyone has to post in a thread.

No kidding! ^^

My point was simple, Reps tiring will mean nothing if Dem got nothing they stand besides dissing Reps and Trump.

I mean, what do Dems offer but a wide gap between 0.1%er Clinton, socialist Sanders, and pizza slogan Pelosi?

So at least I'm on topic and not discouraging members from participating.

[Kalkin]

Lol. A few minor victories and idiot dems are cheering like they didn't lose close to a thousand elections under obama.

[Safety]

No kidding! ^^

My point was simple, Reps tiring will mean nothing if Dem got nothing they stand besides dissing Reps and Trump.

I mean, what do Dems offer but a wide gap between 0.1%er Clinton, socialist Sanders, and pizza slogan Pelosi?

So at least I'm on topic and not discouraging members from participating.

Nothing you posted in this thread contributed in any way, it was the usual attempt at deflection on anything negative towards republicans. Now, you can return and say the same for my posts, but in that case, my posts would not be here either if not for your posts. So that's the metaphysical conundrum you have to realize about attempting to make it about me.

[barb012]

I think the pendulum swings both ways in politics and what we could be witnessing is it swinging towards democrats this time.

Politics is such a dirty business and as we all know most, if not all, politicians will tell you whatever you want to hear as long as you pull the lever for them. Then once elected they "forget" to keep their promises.

I also think the quality of the candidates are at an all time low; many of them--due to many skeletons in their closets--would be very poor selections but for some reason, many voters could care less; it's like being fat, dumb and happy until it impacts on them directly. This is not aimed at any particular political party rather it's aimed broadly at all political parties. They all need to clean up their act.

The voters do care but when they are limited to choosing who is less corrupt over the other one that is corrupt too, what choice do they really have? Government politicians have no integrity and it is obvious that they really don't care about US citizens except the rich and elite. The people could fight back by all of us registering as an independent and not responding to media articles that allow you to give you your opinion. it is a small step but it has a lot of weight since it works to make it difficult to manipulate the public's mindset.

[IMPress Polly]

gamewell45 wrote:
I think the pendulum swings both ways in politics and what we could be witnessing is it swinging towards democrats this time.

I think politics are less like a pendulum swinging than they are like global warming, where there are swings all over the place from time to time, but, in spite of that, one definite overall trend for a lengthy period of time.

For example, the period from 1930 (the onset of the Great Depression) to 1995 (the end of the Cold War) can be described as basically a period of Democratic governance. If one simply looks at the presidential elections, they may sense more volatility than actually existed. Presidential elections aren't most elections. Most elections are state and local, and then after that Congressional. The Democrats controlled the overall majority of public offices in the United States for virtually that entire period, with only tiny, short-lived interruptions.

Conversely, the Republicans have controlled most state and local offices pretty consistently since 9/11. So far, there has only been one interruption in that pattern since: four years in the second half of the 2000s. By the end of the current Congressional term, they will have also held both chambers of Congress for twice as long as the Democrats have since 9/11. I think we can thus reasonably assess that we are currently in an era of general Republican rule, with the late 1990s having served as a bridge between the era of Democratic rule and current one.

Tuesday's elections suggest that it's possible we may be entering into another exceptional period wherein the Democrats make gains, but based on what the pattern has been so far this century overall, I would expect that period to end fairly quickly, as in, at the latest, with Trump's potential defeat in 2020. Then the overall trend, driven by escalating fear of immigrants and terrorism here in our age of globalization, will resume. For now, there are still SOME cultural limits on xenophobia. They may not last forever though. Tracing from 9/11 to the present, you can see those limits evaporating over time.

[Chris]

I think politics are less like a pendulum swinging than they are like global warming, where there are swings all over the place from time to time, but, in spite of that, one definite overall trend for a lengthy period of time.

For example, the period from 1930 (the onset of the Great Depression) to 1995 (the end of the Cold War) can be described as basically a period of Democratic governance. If one simply looks at the presidential elections, they may sense more volatility than actually existed. Presidential elections aren't most elections. Most elections are state and local, and then after that Congressional. The Democrats controlled the overall majority of public offices in the United States for virtually that entire period, with only tiny, short-lived interruptions.

Conversely, the Republicans have controlled most state and local offices pretty consistently since 9/11. So far, there has only been one interruption in that pattern since: four years in the second half of the 2000s. By the end of the current Congressional term, they will have also held both chambers of Congress for twice as long as the Democrats have since 9/11. I think we can thus reasonably assess that we are currently in an era of general Republican rule, with the late 1990s having served as a bridge between the era of Democratic rule and current one.

Tuesday's elections suggest that it's possible we may be entering into another exceptional period wherein the Democrats make gains, but based on what the pattern has been so far this century overall, I would expect that period to end fairly quickly, as in, at the latest, with Trump's potential defeat in 2020. Then the overall trend, driven by escalating fear of immigrants and terrorism here in our age of globalization, will resume. For now, there are still SOME cultural limits on xenophobia. They may not last forever though. Tracing from 9/11 to the present, you can see those limits evaporating over time.

This I would agree with.

In the immediate aftermath of wwii FDR's fellow travelers wanted to retain the war's central planning--same central planning as Hitler and Stalin--but Congress shut it down and the economy prospered. When the economy sputters, conservative Democrats like JFK cut taxes. There were the Reagan years that tried to undo Democrat progress toward Central planning, but 8 years does not make a trend. The Bushes that followed were liberal and Clinton moved us back left. Establishment Reps were so used to giving in to Dems they killed Contract with America buy buying out Gingrich with the promise of power. So I do disagree that the period after 9/11 moved the country at all right even though dominated by nominal Reps. Finally, Trump is no Reagan.

But overall I agree we are moving inexorably left toward greater and greater central planning--the very ideas that brought the world once to war

[gamewell45]

The voters do care but when they are limited to choosing who is less corrupt over the other one that is corrupt too, what choice do they really have? Government politicians have no integrity and it is obvious that they really don't care about US citizens except the rich and elite. The people could fight back by all of us registering as an independent and not responding to media articles that allow you to give you your opinion. it is a small step but it has a lot of weight since it works to make it difficult to manipulate the public's mindset.

Barb, I do agree with you, although my tolerance for corruption, regardless of how much or how little is literally nil. Hence that's why I've been a life-long independent since registering over 44 years ago.

I further believe that at this point it would be tough to take back the government at the federal level since it's so corrupt and run by lobbyists that the voice of the people have been effectively squelched. The state government can still be taken back, although it would be a tough battle to do; at the local level, it is possible to take back the government since corrupt politicians can be easily voted out of office and there are few if any lobbyists.

I do feel that not responding to media articles can be a two edged sword since when people vote you want them to make an informed decision as opposed to one of ignorance and sometimes reading others opinions can cause you to do more research and thus find more information that can help you to decide how you cast your vote.

I suppose if we are going to take back the government we've got to start somewhere; i'd like to see it begin at least at the state level and take it from there. Just my two cents.

[Common]

Nothing you posted in this thread contributed in any way, it was the usual attempt at deflection on anything negative towards republicans. Now, you can return and say the same for my posts, but in that case, my posts would not be here either if not for your posts. So that's the metaphysical conundrum you have to realize about attempting to make it about me.

You beat me to it you and most of the left here do the same thing and alot of the WAAAY more and more sarcastic

[Kacper]

I think politics are less like a pendulum swinging than they are like global warming, where there are swings all over the place from time to time, but, in spite of that, one definite overall trend for a lengthy period of time.

For example, the period from 1930 (the onset of the Great Depression) to 1995 (the end of the Cold War) can be described as basically a period of Democratic governance. If one simply looks at the presidential elections, they may sense more volatility than actually existed. Presidential elections aren't most elections. Most elections are state and local, and then after that Congressional. The Democrats controlled the overall majority of public offices in the United States for virtually that entire period, with only tiny, short-lived interruptions.

Conversely, the Republicans have controlled most state and local offices pretty consistently since 9/11. So far, there has only been one interruption in that pattern since: four years in the second half of the 2000s. By the end of the current Congressional term, they will have also held both chambers of Congress for twice as long as the Democrats have since 9/11. I think we can thus reasonably assess that we are currently in an era of general Republican rule, with the late 1990s having served as a bridge between the era of Democratic rule and current one.

Tuesday's elections suggest that it's possible we may be entering into another exceptional period wherein the Democrats make gains, but based on what the pattern has been so far this century overall, I would expect that period to end fairly quickly, as in, at the latest, with Trump's potential defeat in 2020. Then the overall trend, driven by escalating fear of immigrants and terrorism here in our age of globalization, will resume. For now, there are still SOME cultural limits on xenophobia. They may not last forever though. Tracing from 9/11 to the present, you can see those limits evaporating over time.
Perhaps but there is another dynamic at play in Virginia. Virginians generally do not like controversy. George Allen was the darling of the state and was even having a lot of Vice-Presidential/Presidential talk surrounding him (for reasons known but to God as he is as dumb as a box of rocks) and he got booted because of perceived racial overtones in a speech at a picnic. Virginia does not elect a lot of lightening rod politicians to represent them in the big offices. Eric Cantor got tossed, for instance. Virgil Goode got beaten by Northam's challenger a few years back when Goode who was about the bluest of the blue dogs from a very old political family started getting too much face time on TV for his syrupy, angry anti-Muslim rants on the House floor.

[Mister D]

Lol. A few minor victories and idiot dems are cheering like they didn't lose close to a thousand elections under obama.
Now that only a few diehard imbeciles still cling to Russiagate the less stupid among them need something new to restore their spirits.

[Kacper]

No kidding! ^^

My point was simple, Reps tiring will mean nothing if Dem got nothing they stand besides dissing Reps and Trump.

I mean, what do Dems offer but a wide gap between 0.1%er Clinton, socialist Sanders, and pizza slogan Pelosi?

So at least I'm on topic and not discouraging members from participating.
The strongest predictive data point that binds all of Trump's support together is actually interesting. One can say that this group voted for one, and that group voted for another, but the more authoritarian people are in their politics in general, the more likely they were to support Trump. I am not sure those voters will be discouraged if he runs again. I suspect they will come out in force for him as a giant FU to people who do not share their authoritarian tendencies. Swing voters will be the question mark.

[Chris]

The strongest predictive data point that binds all of Trump's support together is actually interesting. One can say that this group voted for one, and that group voted for another, but the more authoritarian people are in their politics in general, the more likely they were to support Trump. I am not sure those voters will be discouraged if he runs again. I suspect they will come out in force for him as a giant FU to people who do not share their authoritarian tendencies. Swing voters will be the question mark.

That's an interesting observation, that more authoritarian people voted for a Republican. As P. J. O'Rourke quips though: "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

But I think you're right, Trump has done nothing wrong for those who voted for him, so he won't lose those votes. And if he continues to push liberal ideas, he'll gain more Democrat votes.

Unless the Dems get their act together.

[Chris]

You beat me to it you and most of the left here do the same thing and alot of the WAAAY more and more sarcastic

Except, as explained, what I said was a contribution, and now discussion has headed that way.

[AZ Jim]

I believe Polly is right this time, more and more it looks like the republicans are giving away congress. I do disagree on th reason however, its not Trumps fault, its the fault of those republicans that ran as republicans but are democrats. Examples, Flake, Corker, McCain,Powell, Murkowski and others that will vote against and do anything to assure trump fails. In the interim they dont care if they take down the house and senate with him.

Then you have the far right contingency of Rand Paul and Cruz and others that want exactly what they demand and nothing less and between the two factions they are assuring not only trumps failure but the republican parties failure.

If republicans lose the house and senate in 18 it wont be trumps fault, it will be their own.I believe it is Trump and his disdain of any resistance in congress that has created the situation, so it IS all on Trump!!

[Chris]

I believe it is Trump and his disdain of any resistance in congress that has created the situation, so it IS all on Trump!!


Trump not working with the Republican Congress is a lot like the Democrats not with with them.

[Kacper]

That's an interesting observation, that more authoritarian people voted for a Republican. As P. J. O'Rourke quips though: "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

But I think you're right, Trump has done nothing wrong for those who voted for him, so he won't lose those votes. And if he continues to push liberal ideas, he'll gain more Democrat votes.

Unless the Dems get their act together.
Actually what I said was that more authoritarian people supported Trump. It also captures those Bernie to Trump people in the mix as well. It was something shared with me by a friend who runs one of those mass data collection political consulting outfits. There are two very strong data points the correlate to republicans in general--gun ownership and owning a Bible which is where the Obama "clinging to their guns and Bibles" snark came from. It is really interesting how they are starting to zero in on all these general life psychological aspects to predict voter tendencies. It is also quite disturbing that it is at the point where they can acquire so much data on people without them knowing it to build psychological models of very specific voters like look up Chris on Kringle Street in Chrisville by name and know what sort of ads to send you or not send you, know whether to call you or not call you, etc. because they know fairly well which percentage of people like you will vote one way or the other.

[Chris]

Actually what I said was that more authoritarian people supported Trump. It also captures those Bernie to Trump people in the mix as well. It was something shared with me by a friend who runs one of those mass data collection political consulting outfits. There are two very strong data points the correlate to republicans in general--gun ownership and owning a Bible which is where the Obama "clinging to their guns and Bibles" snark came from. It is really interesting how they are starting to zero in on all these general life psychological aspects to predict voter tendencies. It is also quite disturbing that it is at the point where they can acquire so much data on people without them knowing it to build psychological models of very specific voters like look up Chris on Kringle Street in Chrisville by name and know what sort of ads to send you or not send you, know whether to call you or not call you, etc. because they know fairly well which percentage of people like you will vote one way or the other.

"That's an interesting observation, that more authoritarian people voted for a Republican."

"Actually what I said was that more authoritarian people supported Trump."

Huh? Trump ran as a Republican.


As for the data points, that stuff has been know for a long time.

[Kacper]

"That's an interesting observation, that more authoritarian people voted for a Republican."

"Actually what I said was that more authoritarian people supported Trump."

Huh? Trump ran as a Republican.


As for the data points, that stuff has been know for a long time.
Bernie supporters who voted for Trump is an atypical dynamic and more than sour grapes over Hillary. It may be known that guns and bibles are conservative things but knowing precisely who has guns and bibles hasn't been brought together. There is also this new peer pressure dynamic thing some campaigns experiment with where they will send you mailers that specifically mention "like-minded" neighbors by name to try to pressure you to vote like they do when the neighbors they select to name are the ones who support their side of the aisle/issue. It is why you see so few yard signs any more. They don't need them when they can manipulate the people who need to be manipulated by name and address.

[The Xl]

The pendulum always swings because neither party delivers on anything. It's never ending madness. The system needs an overhaul.

[Chris]

The pendulum always swings because neither party delivers on anything. It's never ending madness. The system needs an overhaul.



https://i.snag.gy/fWri8.jpg

[Chris]

Bernie supporters who voted for Trump is an atypical dynamic and more than sour grapes over Hillary. It may be known that guns and bibles are conservative things but knowing precisely who has guns and bibles hasn't been brought together. There is also this new peer pressure dynamic thing some campaigns experiment with where they will send you mailers that specifically mention "like-minded" neighbors by name to try to pressure you to vote like they do when the neighbors they select to name are the ones who support their side of the aisle/issue. It is why you see so few yard signs any more. They don't need them when they can manipulate the people who need to be manipulated by name and address.

Sounds like a lot of over analysis. Bernie voters who voter for Trump did so from one of two reasons. One, Clinton was not an option. Two, both Sanders and Trump are nationalists when it comes to jobs. (does that make Sanders a national socilist? :))

[MisterVeritis]

But I think you're right, Trump has done nothing wrong for those who voted for him, so he won't lose those votes. And if he continues to push liberal ideas, he'll gain more Democrat votes.

Has President Trump done anything wrong for people who failed to vote for him?

[Chris]

Has President Trump done anything wrong for people who failed to vote for him?

No, but I think many are blinded by such hatred for him they fail to see.

[Ravens Fan]

You know, it's not a requirement that anyone has to post in a thread.
@Safety It is considered bad faith to discourage discussion.

General Warning to all: Discuss the topic and not other members.

[Chris]

Hah, found this thread again. Earlier there was discussion why so Many Dems voted Rep (Trump). This is a very interesting read on why. It concerns one of many counties who voted for Obama in a landslide and then four years later voted for Trump in a landslide. The conclusion seems to be they saw in the Democrat Party and Clinton especially a taking for granted of the working class, an ignoring of the forgotten man so to speak, and took to heart Trump's question, what do you have to lose? It also touches on the vote representing anti-elitism. And, finally, they are simply not disappointed in Trump.

The article: The One County In America That Voted In A Landslide For Both Trump And Obama (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-county-in-america-that-voted-in-a-landslide-for-both-trump-and-obama/).

[Safety]

There was no "landslide" victory for Trump. He won by less than 81k votes per the electoral college, and lost the popular vote by almost 3 million, in fact, he lost the popular vote by the biggest margin in presidential history. But don't let little pesky facts get in the way...

[Chris]

There was no "landslide" victory for Trump. He won by less than 81k votes per the electoral college, and lost the popular vote by almost 3 million, in fact, he lost the popular vote by the biggest margin in presidential history. But don't let little pesky facts get in the way...

"It concerns one of many counties who voted for Obama in a landslide and then four years later voted for Trump in a landslide."

The landslide concern particular counties.