The Bigly 2016 US Presidential Election Thread, Part XV

[gump]

A propos:

http://nyti.ms/2ea62OH

The goal of totalitarian propaganda is to sketch out a consistent system that is simple to grasp, one that both constructs and simultaneously provides an explanation for grievances against various out-groups. It is openly intended to distort reality, partly as an expression of the leader’s power. Its open distortion of reality is both its greatest strength and greatest weakness

Donald Trump is trying to define a simple reality as a means to express his power. The goal is to define a reality that justifies his value system, thereby changing the value systems of his audience. Two questions remain: What is the simple reality that Trump is trying to convey? And what is the value system to which this simple story is intended to shift voters to adopt?

...

The simple picture Trump is trying to convey is that there is wild disorder, because of American citizens of African-American descent, and immigrants. He is doing it as a display of strength, showing he is able to define reality and lead others to accept his authoritarian value system.

The chief authoritarian values are law and order. In Trump’s value system, nonwhites and non-Christians are the chief threats to law and order. Trump knows that reality does not call for a value-system like his; violent crime is at almost historic lows in the United States. Trump is thundering about a crime wave of historic proportions, because he is an authoritarian using his speech to define a simple reality that legitimates his value system, leading voters to adopt it. Its strength is that it conveys his power to define reality. Its weakness is that it obviously contradicts it.

...

Denouncing Trump as a liar, or describing him as merely entertaining, misses the point of authoritarian propaganda altogether. Authoritarian propagandists are attempting to convey power by defining reality. The reality they offer is very simple. It is offered with the goal of switching voters’ value systems to the authoritarian value system of the leader.

If you read Arendt, the totalitarian traits in Trump become self evident.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LemonMelon]

Originally Posted by BVS

Explain this further if you don't mind...


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

DaveC extrapolated on it further a couple of posts down. We're of a similar mind on this. I also like this point:

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

Forgive me if this has been mentioned and I overlooked it, but a major characteristic of 20th century authoritarianism/fascism IMO was the use of cult of personality to manipulate government institutions toward personal ends rather than collective ones - something that is at the core of Trump's entire campaign.

I don't think Trump is a buffoon and I'm not sure that I ever did. I just think his "platform" is incohesive when viewed through all but a populist lens.

[Axver]

"Populism" is much too vague a label though, with varying applications. Populism in the Australasian political tradition until recently, for example, was characterised by promotion of extensive state investment and intervention to raise living standards and build/operate public works. It was a rallying cry against private wealth and the landed gentry.

So populism may describe Trump's methods, and some of the emotions or instincts to which he appeals, but by itself it doesn't capture his extremism, his ideology however inconsistent it may be, or how distinctive a break with the past his campaign is (especially democratic traditions).

[Vlad n U 2]

I'm a bit concerned that populism is becoming more commonly defined as anything that isn't within the narrow confines of right-of-centre liberalism. I've seen Sanders lumped in with the term numerous times and that borders on the ridiculous.

[LemonMelon]

It's a diluted and fairly meaningless term at this point in American history, often used as shorthand to define "revolutionaries" that want to unite people against "the system" without reaching too far outside of established boundaries. Demagogues, basically.

And no, that's not what the People's Party of the late 19th century stood for. Populism has taken a lot of turns in the past 50 years or so.

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

DaveC extrapolated on it further a couple of posts down. We're of a similar mind on this. I also like this point:



I don't think Trump is a buffoon and I'm not sure that I ever did. I just think his "platform" is incohesive when viewed through all but a populist lens.

I'd say it's erratic from a policy perspective but remarkably consistent in vilifying whatever group happens to be unpopular among the people he is speaking to that day.

[gump]

I honestly can't understand why this isn't a big story: A candidate who wants to deport all "illegal" migrants from the country is married to someone who was once an "illegal" migrant.

I actually think I understand it. Melania Trump is white. It was never about "illegal" migration. Just getting rid of people who don't look like him.

The fucking hypocrisy of these GOP people.

So let's talk about emails.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by Axver

This has been a good discussion, the sort of thing of which we need more in this thread rather than the shitposting of some pages ago.

i know right, it's almost like something has changed around here for the better in the last couple days. this thread in general was pretty good yesterday.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Latinos are coming out in droves.

I wonder why?

[Axver]

Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2

I'm a bit concerned that populism is becoming more commonly defined as anything that isn't within the narrow confines of right-of-centre liberalism. I've seen Sanders lumped in with the term numerous times and that borders on the ridiculous.

I can understand it, especially when "populism" is understood as the mobilisation of somewhat nebulous grievances through mass rallies. Sanders definitely presented a "socialism lite" (in the sense of American political discourse) that offered something attractive to everybody in the hall, things to make them stand up and cheer. I don't mean to sell him short, and I do not think the label is accurate, but I can see how it came to be applied, and how Sanders and Trump came to be viewed as the populists of their respective camps with their energetic rallies and bold statements.

But geez if packing in audiences at rallies and exciting them with effective catchphrases is now the hallmark of populism, the term is utterly useless.

[Axver]

Originally Posted by gump

I honestly can't understand why this isn't a big story: A candidate who wants to deport all "illegal" migrants from the country is married to someone who was once an "illegal" migrant.

I actually think I understand it. Melania Trump is white. It was never about "illegal" migration. Just getting rid of people who don't look like him.

The fucking hypocrisy of these GOP people.

So let's talk about emails.

I saw people on Twitter today arguing that "progressives" shouldn't make a thing out of this because... I don't really understand why. I suppose they thought it reduced the left to the level of its rivals.

But they missed the point you make so well, that it's not opposition to illegal immigrants that should make this a big story, it's the rank hypocrisy.

Without the wider context, I think many on the left would be cool with Melania doing this work, and that's my guess why it hasn't caught on. It just doesn't stimulate their instinctual forms of political anger.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Kiss Nevada goodbye Trumpets

Donald Trump will be in Reno on Saturday, but the Republicans almost certainly lost Nevada on Friday.

Trump's path was nearly impossible, as I have been telling you, before what happened in Clark County on Friday. But now he needs a Miracle in Vegas on Election Day -- and a Buffalo Bills Super Bowl championship is more likely -- to turn this around. The ripple effect down the ticket probably will cost the Republicans Harry Reid's Senate seat, two GOP House seats and control of the Legislature.

How devastating was it, epitomized by thousands of mostly Latino voters keeping Cardenas market open open in Vegas until 10 PM? This cataclysmic:

----The Democrats won Clark County by more than 11,000 votes Friday (final mail count not posted yet), a record margin on a record-setting turnout day of 57,000 voters. The Dems now have a firewall -- approaching 73,000 ballots -- greater than 2012 when Barack Obama won the state by nearly 7 points. The 71,000 of 2012 was slightly higher in percentage terms, but raw votes matter. The lead is 14 percentage points -- right at registration. You know what else matters? Registration advantages (142,000 in Clark). Reminder: When the Clark votes were counted from early/mail voting in 2012, Obama had a 69,000 vote lead in Clark County. Game over.

----The statewide lead (some rurals not posted) will be above 45,000 -- slightly under the 48,000 of 2012, but still robust. That's 6 percentage points, or right about at registration. The GOP turnout advantage was under a percent, worse than 2012 when it was 1.1 percent.

----The Dems eked out a 200-vote win in Washoe and lead there by 1,000 votes. It was even in 2012. The rural lead, before the stragglers come in, is 27,500. It probably will get above 28,000.

----Total turnout without those rurals: 768,000, or 52.5 percent. If overall turnout ends up being 80 percent, that means two thirds of the vote is in -- close to 2012. Republicans would have to not only win Election Day by close to double digits to turn around the lead Hillary Clinton almost surely has in early voting, but they would have to astronomically boost turnout. The goal for the Dems during early voting was to bank votes and to boost turnout as high as possible to minimize the number of votes left on Election Day to affect races. Folks, the Reid Machine went out with a bang.

As an exclamation point to a historic night in Nevada, in which Clinton essentially locked up the state and Hispanics, insulted all cycle by Trump, streamed into the market, here is what the final Cardenas numbers showed (tallied by an on-the-ground activist):

1,904 voted
1,258: Ds, 66%
165: Rs, 9%
481: NPs, 25%

So Cardenas was responsible for adding 1,000 to the Democratic lead.

Trump has almost no path to the presidency without Nevada. He can say whatever he wants in Reno on Saturday and boost rural turnout a lot, but he made his own bed when he announced his candidacy.

I'll dive deeper into the numbers later to show just how deep the wave could be Tuesday.

http://www.ktnv.com/news/ralston/the...ly-voting-blog

[DaveC]

does early voting continue through the weekend (in general, not just nevada) or does it shut down until monday?

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by DaveC

does early voting continue through the weekend (in general, not just nevada) or does it shut down until monday?

I believe it goes state by state. Here in MA it ended yesterday.
Now only Tuesday left as an option.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Obviously using early voting to predict final numbers is an inexact science.

But the only way Trump can win Nevada is if a) large numbers of registered Democrats voted for Trump, or b) he wins the in person Tuesday vote by a uuuuuge margin.

If past trends hold up, Clinton is going to take Nevada comfortably.

Apparently, and I mean who would have thunk, but it seems that insulting an entire demographic is a bad thing if you plan on winning national elections.

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by DaveC

does early voting continue through the weekend (in general, not just nevada) or does it shut down until monday?

I'm in line for early voting in Chicago right now.

Gary Johnson FTW!
(Kidding)

[gump]

Originally Posted by Axver

I saw people on Twitter today arguing that "progressives" shouldn't make a thing out of this because... I don't really understand why. I suppose they thought it reduced the left to the level of its rivals.

But they missed the point you make so well, that it's not opposition to illegal immigrants that should make this a big story, it's the rank hypocrisy.

Without the wider context, I think many on the left would be cool with Melania doing this work, and that's my guess why it hasn't caught on. It just doesn't stimulate their instinctual forms of political anger.

Absolutely. I very deliberately used quotes around "illegal" because I hate the term and oppose the criminalization of immigration. But the story is the hypocrisy and populism around it, as well as the racial undertones.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LemonMelon]

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Kiss Nevada goodbye Trumpets



http://www.ktnv.com/news/ralston/the...ly-voting-blog

They will save us all.

[iron yuppie]

The full weight of a possible Trump presidency didn't really sink in for me until I saw his name on that ballot today. Wow.