2016 US Presidential Election Thread XIV: May This Entertainment Never End

[gump]

Originally Posted by namkcuR

In either of your first two scenarios, where does the big-business, Wall Street, Bush, Koch wing fit in?

In any case, I think if the GOP wants to win any presidential elections in the future, they need to ditch the 'Christian right' AND the nativists. It's all about demographics. The African-American demographic is already a powerful voting block, the Latino/a population is only going to keep growing, the gay population is more emboldened and open than ever before and the younger generations are far less likely to be swayed by religiously-informed homophobic positions on those issues, and the percentage of people nationally identifying as atheist, agnostic, or unaffiliated is rising, and now combine to make up a quarter of the population, and that could continue to rise and in turn decrease the acceptance of conservative social positions and increase the vitriol of the nativists/trumpists who still support said positions. Oh, and women generally support the party that wants to give them their reproductive rights and equal pay and more(no GOP candidate has won a majority of women since Bush 41 in 1988).

You simply cannot alienate that many demographics and expect to win national elections.

I agree with you that the "demographic" pool for the GOP is getting smaller. But if they hadn't taken their nativist turn, there is a scenario in which a Marco Rubio-type of candidate can appeal to a broader base, including socially conservative latinos. But now, I truly think that boat has sailed with the Trump nativist crowd (which has some overlaps, but not fully, with the socially conservative crowd and the defense hawks). The pieces simply don't fit together in the same coalition anymore, as Paul Ryan is finding day and again.

This is why I referred to the European Christian right as a model. They are significantly more centrist than Republicans, particularly on social issues (as well as on military spending, to be fair). A non-nativist, less socially-conservative, small state, low regulations and low taxes party, I think, would appeal to a larger segment of the population than the current GOP. It would still try to appeal to the nativist right at times - like Sarkozy in France - but it would be a distinct and viable entity. And it would possibly appeal to centrist democrats in places like the rust belt.

[namkcuR]

Originally Posted by gump

I agree with you that the "demographic" pool for the GOP is getting smaller. But if they hadn't taken their nativist turn, there is a scenario in which a Marco Rubio-type of candidate can appeal to a broader base, including socially conservative latinos. But now, I truly think that boat has sailed with the Trump nativist crowd (which has some overlaps, but not fully, with the socially conservative crowd and the defense hawks). The pieces simply don't fit together in the same coalition anymore, as Paul Ryan is finding day and again.

This is why I referred to the European Christian right as a model. They are significantly more centrist than Republicans, particularly on social issues (as well as on military spending, to be fair). A non-nativist, less socially-conservative, small state, low regulations and low taxes party, I think, would appeal to a larger segment of the population than the current GOP. It would still try to appeal to the nativist right at times - like Sarkozy in France - but it would be a distinct and viable entity. And it would possibly appeal to centrist democrats in places like the rust belt.

But again I ask, where would the big business wing fit into that? They're all about endless military spending, increasing the size and scope of the intelligence establishment, and choosing security over privacy. They're just as big-government as us progressives, just in very different ways. The small-staters that the party you're describing would appeal to, probably wouldn't like that stuff too much.

[iron yuppie]

Athletes responding to the "locker room talk" excuse:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/p...wOw#.un6NAAwYw

[Moonlit_Angel]

I like Blake Griffin's tweet .

Good response . Yeah, I'm so sick of people saying, "This is just how guys talk." No, not ALL guys. Some actually understand the concept of being a gentleman and treating women with respect.

[DaveC]

the same people that think all men talk like that are the same people that think all women are easily manipulated into sex with a few backhanded compliments and the right look.

aka mentally deficient scumbags.

[Moonlit_Angel]

This is true.

[mikal]

Bad day for Trump. His supporters continue to drop like flies.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by namkcuR

But again I ask, where would the big business wing fit into that? They're all about endless military spending, increasing the size and scope of the intelligence establishment, and choosing security over privacy. They're just as big-government as us progressives, just in very different ways. The small-staters that the party you're describing would appeal to, probably wouldn't like that stuff too much.

I think you're making a mistake lumping the big business types into their own bucket. I think they're fairly evenly spread between the two that Gump mentioned.,


Any way you slice it, the GOP needs to abandon social conservatism or risk going the way of the Whigs. That and the not so hidden racism of the former Dixiecrats turned Republicans will prevent them from ever taking the presidencey again.

[Axver]

Originally Posted by namkcuR

But again I ask, where would the big business wing fit into that? They're all about endless military spending, increasing the size and scope of the intelligence establishment, and choosing security over privacy.

I really don't think this is an accurate depiction of big business. Their main interests are profit, wherever it comes from, and minimal regulation or interference (governmental or otherwise) in their affairs. They fit neatly within gump's suggestion of a European Christian right model.

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

Athletes responding to the "locker room talk" excuse:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/p...wOw#.un6NAAwYw

This is great.

I have not hung out with a single man who talks like this, and if I were around a man who did speak that way I would make clear my disapproval and remove myself from their presence. Every man with whom I have discussed this has echoed the same, including one who used to be a professional athlete. We can't imagine knowing, or choosing to be in the company of, douchebags who would behave in this way or brag about such behaviour.

[martha]

Originally Posted by Axver

I have not hung out with a single man who talks like this, and if I were around a man who did speak that way I would make clear my disapproval and remove myself from their presence. Every man with whom I have discussed this has echoed the same, including one who used to be a professional athlete. We can't imagine knowing, or choosing to be in the company of, douchebags who would behave in this way or brag about such behaviour.

Which kind of says a lot about whatever men are left on Trump's side.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

God bless the internet

https://youtu.be/tKTwKTrAR-4

[cobl04]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

People spinning this like Trump "stopped the bleeding" when he rambled like a lunatic for 100 minutes makes no sense to me. He was horrific.

I hear you. I'm seeing an awful lot of talk about Trump winning the debate, breathing new life into the campaign. Which I cannot remotely comprehend, he was borderline insane at times.

I would have liked to have seen Hillary really go the cunt, eviscerate him, the time for niceties is over. But having said that I'm sure that would been spun against her, the ravings of a "hysterical" woman.

[QUOTE=BoMac;8110368]

Incredible.

[cobl04]

This is from one of our conservative TV shows.

[namkcuR]

Originally Posted by Axver

I really don't think this is an accurate depiction of big business. Their main interests are profit, wherever it comes from, and minimal regulation or interference (governmental or otherwise) in their affairs. They fit neatly within gump's suggestion of a European Christian right model.

Of course their main interests are profit and lack of regulation, but the candidates - in the U.S. anyway - who have run in favor of those things have very often also espoused the things I mentioned - military spending is never enough, sacrifice of some amount of privacy is worth it to be safer, etc.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by cobl04

I hear you. I'm seeing an awful lot of talk about Trump winning the debate, breathing new life into the campaign. Which I cannot remotely comprehend, he was borderline insane at times.

What may have happened (and as best I can summarize from what I've read and seen today) is the best possible thing for Hillary-- he wasn't so bad they the GOP could put a bullet in his brain, and he may have actually given euphoric voice to the nasty Breitbart folks who have wanted to yell "murderous c*nt" in Clinton's face since 1992 (the talk radio base).

What that does is:

1. Ensure he stays in the race, which ...
2. Lashes himself and thereby the GOP to the very Deplorables who loved his performance last night, thus giving us ...
3. A now discredited party at war with itself and now unacceptable to more than 60% of the country.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by BEAL

It's not like these debates have much of an impact on polls, or swaying people's minds.

And one final note. I fear for Hillary's life when she's elected. The rhetoric during this cycle has been the worst I've ever seen/heard. Trump has made more than a few remarks to incite potential violence against her. The GOP has spent 30 years turning Clinton(s) into the devil.

Actually, the debates have a profound impact on the remaining undecided voters and it's effectively the only opportunity for the candidate that is trailing to gain any ground barring some October surprise. Basically, if you're behind and the debates are over, what's randomly going to change over the final couple weeks when you're just doing your stump speech in swing states and flooding the airwaves with attack ads? Answer: Nothing.

I actually don't really fear for the lives of our Commander In Chiefs anymore because of the obvious sympathy aspect that comes into play when someone is assassinated (see Kennedy). If you assassinate a leader you politically disagree with (beyond risking your own life and freedom in the process), you're only going to hurt your own cause and help theirs once the dust settles. In other words, it's a total lose situation from every standpoint. Not that their won't be crazies that consider it, mind you. But actually going through with it, especially from a political disagreement, in 2016? Nah.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by BVS

It's funny, they absolutely hate Hillary, and like you said almost anyone they put up against her would have had a chance due to her baggage(real or imagined), but they chose the one that almost guaranteed her the seat.

Well, by "they" you just mean a bare majority of primary voters, many of whom were previously disenfranchised and brought into the process via Trump's anti-trade pact statements, and moreso, his racism.

As far as the party is concerned, they knew where their bread was buttered and backed Rubio - the guy that fared the best in head-to-head matchups with Democrats throughout the cycle. Just as McCain and Romney did among the other major Republican candidates in the last two cycles.

Next time, things will shift back to which candidate can actually have the best chance of winning. They'll get the endorsements, favorable conservative press treatment and lots of money since Republicans will be damn hungry to get the White House back after twelve years on the outs. Everything will favor the Chosen Polling One.

And who knows, they might actually be sorta competitive in 2020. Imagine Clinton engaging in a bit of unpopular foreign involvement, hitting a slight recession and, mostly, being hamstrung by Republican obstructionism in the House. If they can point out that the economy finally sucks and that she can't get any significant legislation through Congress, there might be enough idiots willing to listen.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by gump

- The GOP adopts a Ryan-style policy of trying to appease the two camps, which will ultimately fail (apart from local races) as demographic trends shift. The GOP then continues to lose popularity nation-wide, and America becomes Democratic-leaning for the foreseeable future. Democrats should be somewhat scared of this scenario, to be frank, as a vital opposition is important in any democracy.

This is what will happen although I think demographics and attitudes toward important policy issues play a much bigger part than GOP obstructionism and ongoing stupidity.

But one party rule isn't something to be afraid of because the primaries are where the real elections will take place, just as that's the case for most House and Senate seats currently in this country (and the Democratic Primary is effectively becoming the actual Presidential election as well).

And there will most certainly be a divide between the far left branch that can easily drum up a lot of motivated voters and those that take a more centrist, pro-corporate stance (like Clinton and Booker). That's really where the battle will become (essentially, big donors versus millions of small ones) and it will be a relief to be arguing over how best to implement policies from an economic standpoint rather than having to actually debate over these moronic social issues that should have been decided in the left's favor decades ago.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

[QUOTE=cobl04;8110417]I hear you. I'm seeing an awful lot of talk about Trump winning the debate, breathing new life into the campaign. Which I cannot remotely comprehend, he was borderline insane at times.

I would have liked to have seen Hillary really go the cunt, eviscerate him, the time for niceties is over. But having said that I'm sure that would been spun against her, the ravings of a "hysterical" woman.

Originally Posted by BoMac

Incredible.

Hillary didn't knock him out of the race, which was a distinct possibility going into the debate.

So in that instance, yes. Trump won.

He didn't get any closer to winning the election, alas... he's still here. For now.

[BigMacPhisto]

As pointed out, it is best for Clinton that he has just barely been able to stay in the race - with polling surges coming at the right time and the bottom not dropping out completely lately. He's an easier win than going up against Pence with less baggage, but the bigger enjoyment out of it is knowing that Trump basically wasted all these extra months when some more bad polling could have had him drop out not long after the conventions.