U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[JFK-1]

Might still see Trumps assets being seized, Letitia James has filed a 26 page objection to Trump $175 million bond. It says aimong other things this company posting the bond isn't authorised to issue bonds in NY and even if they were she says they don't have the money to cover the bond.

She's asking the judge to accept her objections and give Trump just 7 more days to come up with a legitimate bond, if he can't let the seizures begin.

 

 

[JFK-1]

What Did President Trump Do for 187 Minutes on Jan. 6? (Democracy on Trial: Pt. 12)

What was then-President Donald Trump doing for 187 minutes during the violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when some in the crowd were chanting “hang Mike Pence”? The Jan. 6 Select Committee sought answers to that question. Watch Pt. 12 of “Democracy on Trial.”

 

 

[Canscot]

The fun starts today!

[Maple Leaf]

1 hour ago, Canscot said:

The fun starts today!

I wonder how long it will be until Trump throws his first tantrum?

[Footballfirst]

Just now, Maple Leaf said:

I wonder how long it will be until Trump throws his first tantrum?

Not before he wakes up.  He's already nodded off during the judge's instructions to the jurors.

[The Real Maroonblood]

5 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Not before he wakes up.  He's already nodded off during the judge's instructions to the jurors.

Hopefully he’ll nod off and forget to waken up.

[Maple Leaf]

12 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Not before he wakes up.  He's already nodded off during the judge's instructions to the jurors.

 

And he has the cheek to call Biden "Sleepy Joe"

[Watt-Zeefuik]

2 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

And he has the cheek to call Biden "Sleepy Joe"

 

As they say, with Trump, every accusation is a confession. It's kind of astonishing how often it's true, though.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Meanwhile, with the caveat that this is just seeing which way the wind happens to be blowing at the moment, poll numbers are slowly moving towards Biden. Marist, whose methodology usually seems to give slightly more favorable numbers to GOP candidates, has Biden leading Trump 51-48 among registered voters. With the third party candidates included, it's 43-38.

 

If the poll is limited to those who say they will definitely vote in November, the lead grows to 53-47, or 46-39 if third parties are included.

 

https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/election-2024-april/

 

Again, IMO this shows absolutely nothing but that the election is shifting towards Biden slightly, which is not surprising to me but is nonetheless encouraging.

Edited Monday at 17:49 by Watt-Zeefuik

[Jim_Duncan]

5 hours ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

Meanwhile, with the caveat that this is just seeing which way the wind happens to be blowing at the moment, poll numbers are slowly moving towards Biden. Marist, whose methodology usually seems to give slightly more favorable numbers to GOP candidates, has Biden leading Trump 51-48 among registered voters. With the third party candidates included, it's 43-38.

 

If the poll is limited to those who say they will definitely vote in November, the lead grows to 53-47, or 46-39 if third parties are included.

 

https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/election-2024-april/

 

Again, IMO this shows absolutely nothing but that the election is shifting towards Biden slightly, which is not surprising to me but is nonetheless encouraging.

Still a fair chance that one or both of them might keel over pan breid prior to November. 

[Canscot]

I know there is much about this trial, indeed the whole Donald Trump story in fact that you just could not make up!

I just about pmsl when I saw the word of the first witness called to the stand……….  One David Pecker!

For those of you who may not be quite so  informed about Canadian/American slang , Pecker is slang for cock😂

[Ulysses]

6 hours ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

Meanwhile, with the caveat that this is just seeing which way the wind happens to be blowing at the moment, poll numbers are slowly moving towards Biden. Marist, whose methodology usually seems to give slightly more favorable numbers to GOP candidates, has Biden leading Trump 51-48 among registered voters. With the third party candidates included, it's 43-38.

 

If the poll is limited to those who say they will definitely vote in November, the lead grows to 53-47, or 46-39 if third parties are included.

 

https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/election-2024-april/

 

Again, IMO this shows absolutely nothing but that the election is shifting towards Biden slightly, which is not surprising to me but is nonetheless encouraging.

 

When was the jury selection for the Trump hush money trial in the news?

 

I ask because the fieldwork for that poll was done last Monday-Wednesday.  Compared to the last Marist (with others) poll, for which fieldwork was done about three weeks earlier, Trump's favourable rating hasn't changed - but his unfavourable rating has improved marginally.  If the polling was done while the jury selection was in the news, you'd be forgiven for inferring that the headlines didn't do Trump's favourability ratings any damage at all.

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Jim_Duncan said:

Still a fair chance that one or both of them might keel over pan breid prior to November. 

 

About 1 in 40 that Trump will keel over, and about 1 in 29 that Biden will, meaning a 1 in 1,160 possibility that both will (assuming you treat them keeling over as independent events).  That's based on average white male life expectancy at ages 77-78 (Trump) and 81-82 (Biden) in the United States.  In reality, their statuses and income levels means the odds are probably even higher.

 

 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

When was the jury selection for the Trump hush money trial in the news?

 

I ask because the fieldwork for that poll was done last Monday-Wednesday.  Compared to the last Marist (with others) poll, for which fieldwork was done about three weeks earlier, Trump's favourable rating hasn't changed - but his unfavourable rating has improved marginally.  If the polling was done while the jury selection was in the news, you'd be forgiven for inferring that the headlines didn't do Trump's favourability ratings any damage at all.

 

Mostly late last week. Beginning of the week was all preliminary motions with a bit of jury selection. But I honestly don't expect the spectacle of this particular trial to do too much to the favorability rating unless there's a conviction. The Stormy Daniels stuff is seedy AF but it's hardly new, and it's complicated as to exactly how it's illegal. But a felony conviction, at some level, is a felony conviction.

 

The J6 trial, if it lands in August or September, could be a much bigger spectacle.

 

If you're looking through those data for a reason for the shift in the polls, I'd say the most obvious one is an improvement in Biden's approval for handling of the economy. It's still underwater but it's bumped a couple of points. Which, again, makes sense. I'd say the other big thing that happened since the February poll is that Biden came out swinging at the SOTU and put the "doddering old fool" memes to bed for a while.

 

The election ultimately is going to be more about Biden than it is about Trump, as weird as I realize that seems from afar.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

To write a longer thing about the state of the election, and why I read the impact of the data very differently from @Ulysses . . .

 

The discussion this week but this thread in general highlight how a lot of y'all clearly think that Donald Trump is the most interesting, most relevant, most important thing about US politics. And to a degree you're not entirely wrong, in that he's an existential threat to American democracy and democracy in the world in general. But in terms of what has salience in the conversations with other US citizens on social media, at the bar, at the school pickup line, and so forth, he's just not that interesting a topic right now. His fans believe in him. His foes are sick of him and scared of what could happen if he comes back. But we're not actually talking about him that much.

 

For context, I live in kind of an odd combo of factors. North Carolina is the state Trump carried most narrowly in 2020, but Durham County (where I live) voted for Biden by about 81-18% (the county just north of us went for Trump). At the same time, my next door neighbor was a big Trump fan. When we were moving back into the neighborhood in 2019 (6 years in Virginia but kept the house here), we told new folks we'd meet "we're the house NEXT to the giant Trump sign." He actually quit talking to me for months because I tried to intercede in a shouting match between him and other neighbors of ours, a gay couple. When Biden was finally declared winner, a lot of us were driving up and down the street honking horns and waving to each other, and my neighbors sat on their porch and grumbled about the rigged election.

 

After J6 that sign went down ("someone stole it!" he said) and never came back up. He's never said it but I know my neighbor's brother is a cop. I think the violence against police on J6 was too much for him. I don't know how he'll vote in November, but even if it's for Trump the gusto has totally vanished. In 2016 and 2020 we'd see MAGA bumper stickers and flags all over the place, even in our "dark blue" city. I still see one occasionally but it's much rarer. His fans might vote for him, possibly in large numbers, but the big, rowdy fun ride vibe that surrounded both of his previous campaigns is totally gone.

 

What are people actually talking about instead of the orange rapey fash? Gaza, housing, immigration, and inflation. The ongoing shitshow of the House GOP. "Is Biden too old" was a big topic two months ago but is gone for now.  Climate change is a big one, but maybe that's just our "blue" city. And, of course, abortion, abortion, abortion.

 

I'm not saying there aren't corners where it's all rah-rah-Trump all the time. I'm saying I used to see more of it, and I hardly ever see it now. Folk on here talk a lot about the "MAGA cult" and it's not entirely wrong but that's like 30-35% of the country—a terrifying amount, to be sure, but not nearly enough to get him the majority. The rest of his support is just upper income people who like that he cut their taxes, or people who are annoyed at immigration or the tent cities that the housing crisis is creating, or people who get worked up about the trans ladies using the bathroom. Some just really don't like Democrats or Joe Biden and so are going to hold their nose and vote for him.

 

And that might be enough for him to win re-election. But as frustrating as it is, given how dangerous he is, that's going to be more about people giving up on Biden than swearing allegiance to the MAGA cult.

Edited Tuesday at 02:24 by Watt-Zeefuik

[Jim_Duncan]

5 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

About 1 in 40 that Trump will keel over, and about 1 in 29 that Biden will, meaning a 1 in 1,160 possibility that both will (assuming you treat them keeling over as independent events).  That's based on average white male life expectancy at ages 77-78 (Trump) and 81-82 (Biden) in the United States.  In reality, their statuses and income levels means the odds are probably even higher.

 

 

 

What about stress levels and lifestyle factors?

 

 

[Gundermann]

Interesting anecote re Reagan. Would love a Carter as US president now.

 

Reagan, tbf, was sufficiently horrified as Israel's slaughter of civilians in Lebanon to halt it with one phone call though.

 

[ToadKiller Dog]

OK a bit childish but the rumour flying round  of Trumps lawyers struggling to cope with his constant rancid smelling farts made me chuckle .

[JFK-1]

7 hours ago, ToadKiller Dog said:

OK a bit childish but the rumour flying round  of Trumps lawyers struggling to cope with his constant rancid smelling farts made me chuckle .

They deserve it, I hope Trump has a diaper malfunction requiring a full hazmat team.

[Ulysses]

19 hours ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

Mostly late last week. Beginning of the week was all preliminary motions with a bit of jury selection. But I honestly don't expect the spectacle of this particular trial to do too much to the favorability rating unless there's a conviction. The Stormy Daniels stuff is seedy AF but it's hardly new, and it's complicated as to exactly how it's illegal. But a felony conviction, at some level, is a felony conviction.

 

The J6 trial, if it lands in August or September, could be a much bigger spectacle.

 

If you're looking through those data for a reason for the shift in the polls, I'd say the most obvious one is an improvement in Biden's approval for handling of the economy. It's still underwater but it's bumped a couple of points. Which, again, makes sense. I'd say the other big thing that happened since the February poll is that Biden came out swinging at the SOTU and put the "doddering old fool" memes to bed for a while.

 

The election ultimately is going to be more about Biden than it is about Trump, as weird as I realize that seems from afar.

 

I mentioned some months ago that there is often a lag between an economic upturn and the government getting some credit for it from the electorate, and that I felt this might be a factor in polling in the US through the winter.  That's why I've said a couple of times that I'd be interested to see how Biden is faring in May, or more precisely towards the end of May. It's also why I was interested to see Biden open a slight lead over Trump in the poll you referenced, and especially to improve his standing with independents, even though neither candidate's favourable-unfavourable rating changed.  That could be a pointer to exactly the suggestion you've made about Biden's handling of the economy.  It's also interesting to see a couple of polls showing that Biden fares better when Kennedy's name is included in the question, when a couple of weeks ago Biden was faring worse.  It's only a handful of polls, so it all might be nothing, of course.  And more generally RCP's poll tracker has shown no change in the popular vote worth speaking of since the start of April, and of course also shows Trump leading in all of the states he needs to swing from Biden with the exception of Pennsylvania.

 

Conventional wisdom says that governments lose elections rather than oppositions winning them, so in that sense we actually shouldn't be surprised if ultimately the election is about Biden rather than Trump.  Having said that, the Orange One has for years had a remarkable capacity to make things all about him, so I wouldn't discount his ability to do the same again.

[JFK-1]

It’s absolutely staggering there’s anybody who could think of anything favourable to say about Trump. Anybody want to try?

[Watt-Zeefuik]

3 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

I mentioned some months ago that there is often a lag between an economic upturn and the government getting some credit for it from the electorate, and that I felt this might be a factor in polling in the US through the winter.  That's why I've said a couple of times that I'd be interested to see how Biden is faring in May, or more precisely towards the end of May. It's also why I was interested to see Biden open a slight lead over Trump in the poll you referenced, and especially to improve his standing with independents, even though neither candidate's favourable-unfavourable rating changed.  That could be a pointer to exactly the suggestion you've made about Biden's handling of the economy.  It's also interesting to see a couple of polls showing that Biden fares better when Kennedy's name is included in the question, when a couple of weeks ago Biden was faring worse.  It's only a handful of polls, so it all might be nothing, of course.  And more generally RCP's poll tracker has shown no change in the popular vote worth speaking of since the start of April, and of course also shows Trump leading in all of the states he needs to swing from Biden with the exception of Pennsylvania.

 

Conventional wisdom says that governments lose elections rather than oppositions winning them, so in that sense we actually shouldn't be surprised if ultimately the election is about Biden rather than Trump.  Having said that, the Orange One has for years had a remarkable capacity to make things all about him, so I wouldn't discount his ability to do the same again.

 

Yeah, he's lucked out enough times that you kind of have the sense that he has a deal with the devil or some such, but the thing is that there's other explanations beyond him having a magical ability to bullshit his way out of anything. Not that I can easily set aside that he's going to just bullshit his way back to the oval office, but there are other explanations.

 

In 2016 Clinton was likely going to win until the Comey memo dropped, and given that it came out the day before election day no poll would have picked up the movement. At the same time, Clinton ran this super new tech data-driven campaign rather than an old fashioned boots on the ground campaign, and there's a lot of folks I know who do organizing who blame her and Robby Mook's whizbang hypertargeting for blowing chance after chance to make up ground with voters. Also, she'd been the subject of Fox News smears for 25 years at that point, it was hard for her to dig out from under all that.

 

In 2020 Trump had both the benefit of incumbency, and the general rule in American politics is that elected incumbents get re-elected barring something unusual. Even a terrible and unpopular President like GWB got re-elected, and it probably took the Ross Perot campaign for his dad to lose. Carter probably had a decent chance without the hostage crisis. In my lifetime, it's them and Trump and no one else that's lost. Add to that, the Democrats were worried about COVID and didn't want to send campaigners door to door, so relied on video and phone banking, which just doesn't work as well. The RNC still had the leftovers of the get out the vote operation that GWB's minions left behind plus the fundraising superiority that left the GOP with a $300 million advantage. The consensus was that the GOP had the edge on the ground game and in the pocketbook.

 

Lots still to go this year, but Trump just fired most of the RNC people who were coordinating the vaunted RNC ground game. Biden's team seems determined to not get beat on the ground and is opening far more satellite campaign offices far earlier than last time. And then there's the titanic fundraising advantage that each wing of the Democratic campaign has opened over its Republican counterpart, and that's even before you get to Trump raiding all of them to pay his legal bills.

 

Which is to say, we have an experiment happening. At the moment, Trump's luck appears to have run out and the advantages he's been able to rely on are disappearing. Unless, of course, he really does have magical bullshit ability and he's going to talk his way out of this one. (And even though I'm calling it "magical bullshit," I'm not denying that it seems to exist.) Or maybe the GOP gets another "October Surprise" and craters Biden right at the end.

[Ulysses]

9 hours ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

Yeah, he's lucked out enough times that you kind of have the sense that he has a deal with the devil or some such, but the thing is that there's other explanations beyond him having a magical ability to bullshit his way out of anything. Not that I can easily set aside that he's going to just bullshit his way back to the oval office, but there are other explanations.

 

In 2016 Clinton was likely going to win until the Comey memo dropped, and given that it came out the day before election day no poll would have picked up the movement. At the same time, Clinton ran this super new tech data-driven campaign rather than an old fashioned boots on the ground campaign, and there's a lot of folks I know who do organizing who blame her and Robby Mook's whizbang hypertargeting for blowing chance after chance to make up ground with voters. Also, she'd been the subject of Fox News smears for 25 years at that point, it was hard for her to dig out from under all that.

 

In 2020 Trump had both the benefit of incumbency, and the general rule in American politics is that elected incumbents get re-elected barring something unusual. Even a terrible and unpopular President like GWB got re-elected, and it probably took the Ross Perot campaign for his dad to lose. Carter probably had a decent chance without the hostage crisis. In my lifetime, it's them and Trump and no one else that's lost. Add to that, the Democrats were worried about COVID and didn't want to send campaigners door to door, so relied on video and phone banking, which just doesn't work as well. The RNC still had the leftovers of the get out the vote operation that GWB's minions left behind plus the fundraising superiority that left the GOP with a $300 million advantage. The consensus was that the GOP had the edge on the ground game and in the pocketbook.

 

Lots still to go this year, but Trump just fired most of the RNC people who were coordinating the vaunted RNC ground game. Biden's team seems determined to not get beat on the ground and is opening far more satellite campaign offices far earlier than last time. And then there's the titanic fundraising advantage that each wing of the Democratic campaign has opened over its Republican counterpart, and that's even before you get to Trump raiding all of them to pay his legal bills.

 

Which is to say, we have an experiment happening. At the moment, Trump's luck appears to have run out and the advantages he's been able to rely on are disappearing. Unless, of course, he really does have magical bullshit ability and he's going to talk his way out of this one. (And even though I'm calling it "magical bullshit," I'm not denying that it seems to exist.) Or maybe the GOP gets another "October Surprise" and craters Biden right at the end.

 

Thanks for that.  I don't disagree with any of it, but I will anyway - but only a bit.

 

In American political analysis, incumbency is regarded as almost a defensive fortress.  That's with good reason - except when it comes to the Presidency.  You've mentioned three incumbents who lost.  But don't forget that Ford was an incumbent in 1976, albeit in less than ideal political circumstances.  So also was LBJ, when he quit because of his poor performance at the start of the 1968 Democratic primaries. So while he didn't lose in the general election, the reality is that he failed in the primaries.  So in my lifetime there have been five incumbent Presidents who have failed to be re-elected. In the same decades, there were four who came through unscathed - Reagan, Clinton, GW Bush and Obama.  Regardless of the specific reasons for each of the losses, that's a 50% fail rate if you treat Ford's loss as an extension of Nixon's resignation.

 

Separately, and I've mused about this before, what percentage of American voters are genuinely independent or undecided?  The candidates and their shadow armies will spend astronomical sums on the campaign, whether high-tech or "ground game". All of that is fine and helpful when it comes to getting your own base to show up and vote for you.  But does much (if any) of it help to change anyone's mind?  I doubt that more than 10% of voters are "independent", and it's probably closer to 5 or 7 percent. 

 

Finally, and right out on a tangent, how do you feel about this proposition?  Trump might well be bad for America, and bad for politics, but he's helped with one problem that the journos claim has afflicted American politics since I was a child - getting people to show up to vote, whether for or against him. Was the 2020 turnout a record?  Will 2024 match it?

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

Thanks for that.  I don't disagree with any of it, but I will anyway - but only a bit.

 

In American political analysis, incumbency is regarded as almost a defensive fortress.  That's with good reason - except when it comes to the Presidency.  You've mentioned three incumbents who lost.  But don't forget that Ford was an incumbent in 1976, albeit in less than ideal political circumstances.  So also was LBJ, when he quit because of his poor performance at the start of the 1968 Democratic primaries. So while he didn't lose in the general election, the reality is that he failed in the primaries.  So in my lifetime there have been five incumbent Presidents who have failed to be re-elected. In the same decades, there were four who came through unscathed - Reagan, Clinton, GW Bush and Obama.  Regardless of the specific reasons for each of the losses, that's a 50% fail rate if you treat Ford's loss as an extension of Nixon's resignation.

 

I did specify "elected incumbent" for that reason. Johnson is an odd case—he won in 1964 in part because of the overwhelming sentiment following JFK's assassination. But he was still a promoted vice president. Ford wasn't even elected as a vice president—he was promoted following the forced resignation of Agnew and then reached the presidency because of Nixon's forced resignation. Before that, you have to go all the way back to Hoover who had the Great Depression to answer for, and none others in the 20th century. In that time, you have the successful candidacies of McKinley, T. Roosevelt (non-elected incumbent), Wilson, Coolidge (non-elected), FDR (x3!), Truman (non-elected and a surprise), and Eisenhower.

 

And again, Carter had the October Surprise, GWHB had Ross Perot, and Trump was Trump.

 

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

Separately, and I've mused about this before, what percentage of American voters are genuinely independent or undecided?  The candidates and their shadow armies will spend astronomical sums on the campaign, whether high-tech or "ground game". All of that is fine and helpful when it comes to getting your own base to show up and vote for you.  But does much (if any) of it help to change anyone's mind?  I doubt that more than 10% of voters are "independent", and it's probably closer to 5 or 7 percent. 

 

Correct, it's all a turnout game. And I think you're right, 5-7% are what you might call true swing voters. For the rest, it's whether they show up or not.  And the money spent on the campaign is both to get your own voters out but it's also to discourage your opponent's base from voting. It's a broken system and I hate that it works this way, but I'm expecting the Democrats to absolutely blanket the October airwaves with footage from J6 and stories of raped kids having to flee their states to get abortions. It's a sick form of politics and it needs reform but until then it's how you win.

 

The expectation is that this year will be lower than average turnout. And again, with Trump gutting the GOP's turnout efforts, well, I expect GOP turnout to be down but then again I never in a million years thought his actual vote total would go *up* from 2016 to 2020, but it did. I ascribe that to their turnout machine which for the moment remains disassmebled but who the hell knows . . .

 

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

Finally, and right out on a tangent, how do you feel about this proposition?  Trump might well be bad for America, and bad for politics, but he's helped with one problem that the journos claim has afflicted American politics since I was a child - getting people to show up to vote, whether for or against him. Was the 2020 turnout a record?  Will 2024 match it?

 

Turnout is an odd thing when it comes to records. It was technically exceptionally high in the 19th century, but then it was only white men allowed to vote, and for a while you had to be landed. After that, you have the on-again, off-again swings of voter suppression and voter facilitation. (The only reason Mississippi is reliably Republican is because of massive voter suppression there. If the Democrats would get the finger out and pass a new, more robust federal voting rights act that restored the work that the SCOTUS gutted, and add felon re-enfranchisement, Mississippi would be reliably blue.) So it wasn't record turnout in terms of who voted vs. who could vote, but it was certainly the most people ever voting.

 

As for whether it's good that people are turnout out in order to try to stop a fascist repeal of American Democracy . . . I can't really say that's a good thing? People voting out of terror isn't healthy in any sense.

[Mikey1874]

Carter only lost because the Republicans paid the Iranians $billions to keep the hostages until after the election. So had the incumbency benefit apart from that unusual situation. 

[Malinga the Swinga]

On 23/04/2024 at 03:22, Watt-Zeefuik said:

To write a longer thing about the state of the election, and why I read the impact of the data very differently from @Ulysses . . .

 

The discussion this week but this thread in general highlight how a lot of y'all clearly think that Donald Trump is the most interesting, most relevant, most important thing about US politics. And to a degree you're not entirely wrong, in that he's an existential threat to American democracy and democracy in the world in general. But in terms of what has salience in the conversations with other US citizens on social media, at the bar, at the school pickup line, and so forth, he's just not that interesting a topic right now. His fans believe in him. His foes are sick of him and scared of what could happen if he comes back. But we're not actually talking about him that much.

 

For context, I live in kind of an odd combo of factors. North Carolina is the state Trump carried most narrowly in 2020, but Durham County (where I live) voted for Biden by about 81-18% (the county just north of us went for Trump). At the same time, my next door neighbor was a big Trump fan. When we were moving back into the neighborhood in 2019 (6 years in Virginia but kept the house here), we told new folks we'd meet "we're the house NEXT to the giant Trump sign." He actually quit talking to me for months because I tried to intercede in a shouting match between him and other neighbors of ours, a gay couple. When Biden was finally declared winner, a lot of us were driving up and down the street honking horns and waving to each other, and my neighbors sat on their porch and grumbled about the rigged election.

 

After J6 that sign went down ("someone stole it!" he said) and never came back up. He's never said it but I know my neighbor's brother is a cop. I think the violence against police on J6 was too much for him. I don't know how he'll vote in November, but even if it's for Trump the gusto has totally vanished. In 2016 and 2020 we'd see MAGA bumper stickers and flags all over the place, even in our "dark blue" city. I still see one occasionally but it's much rarer. His fans might vote for him, possibly in large numbers, but the big, rowdy fun ride vibe that surrounded both of his previous campaigns is totally gone.

 

What are people actually talking about instead of the orange rapey fash? Gaza, housing, immigration, and inflation. The ongoing shitshow of the House GOP. "Is Biden too old" was a big topic two months ago but is gone for now.  Climate change is a big one, but maybe that's just our "blue" city. And, of course, abortion, abortion, abortion.

 

I'm not saying there aren't corners where it's all rah-rah-Trump all the time. I'm saying I used to see more of it, and I hardly ever see it now. Folk on here talk a lot about the "MAGA cult" and it's not entirely wrong but that's like 30-35% of the country—a terrifying amount, to be sure, but not nearly enough to get him the majority. The rest of his support is just upper income people who like that he cut their taxes, or people who are annoyed at immigration or the tent cities that the housing crisis is creating, or people who get worked up about the trans ladies using the bathroom. Some just really don't like Democrats or Joe Biden and so are going to hold their nose and vote for him.

 

And that might be enough for him to win re-election. But as frustrating as it is, given how dangerous he is, that's going to be more about people giving up on Biden than swearing allegiance to the MAGA cult.

Cheers for that. Made interesting reading.

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

I did specify "elected incumbent" for that reason. Johnson is an odd case—he won in 1964 in part because of the overwhelming sentiment following JFK's assassination. But he was still a promoted vice president. Ford wasn't even elected as a vice president—he was promoted following the forced resignation of Agnew and then reached the presidency because of Nixon's forced resignation. Before that, you have to go all the way back to Hoover who had the Great Depression to answer for, and none others in the 20th century. In that time, you have the successful candidacies of McKinley, T. Roosevelt (non-elected incumbent), Wilson, Coolidge (non-elected), FDR (x3!), Truman (non-elected and a surprise), and Eisenhower.

 

Johnson won in 1964, and didn't clear the primaries in 1968, so we can't just ignore him. I already parked Ford. 

 

All the history really means is that incumbents used to be unassailable, but that their failure rate has gone up since - quelle surprise - the turbulent 1960s.

 

 

1 hour ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

And again, Carter had the October Surprise, GWHB had Ross Perot, and Trump was Trump.

 

Everyone who loses does so for some reason, in fairness, and not just incumbents.  Humphrey had Wallace in 1968, and we'll never know how the history of the next 12-16 years might have played out if he'd squeezed a couple of hundred hundred votes in about 3 states and finished ahead of Nixon.  Mondale and Dukakis were Mondale and Dukakis (sorry, but you know what I mean).  I watched the 1996 campaign and never believed that Dole could actually be a President, and I could scarcely believe it when Romney stayed competitive for as long as he did.

 

 

1 hour ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

It's a broken system and I hate that it works this way, but I'm expecting the Democrats to absolutely blanket the October airwaves with footage from J6 and stories of raped kids having to flee their states to get abortions. It's a sick form of politics and it needs reform but until then it's how you win.

 

I'd say that's partly because it's a first past the post system, and partly because there are only two realistic options.  The UK sometimes shows signs of the same problem, but there's still a bit of room for alternatives to the UK's political "OF".

 

1 hour ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

As for whether it's good that people are turnout out in order to try to stop a fascist repeal of American Democracy . . . I can't really say that's a good thing? People voting out of terror isn't healthy in any sense.

 

I get what you're saying, but I guess it'd be worse if they didn't.

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

2 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Everyone who loses does so for some reason, in fairness, and not just incumbents.  Humphrey had Wallace in 1968, and we'll never know how the history of the next 12-16 years might have played out if he'd squeezed a couple of hundred hundred votes in about 3 states and finished ahead of Nixon.  Mondale and Dukakis were Mondale and Dukakis (sorry, but you know what I mean).  I watched the 1996 campaign and never believed that Dole could actually be a President, and I could scarcely believe it when Romney stayed competitive for as long as he did.

 

I know what you mean. Those were my formative years and I deeply internalized that Democrats could never actually win the White House because our party was boring and stupid. Despite all the polling showing him ahead I was still genuinely shocked when Clinton actually won in 1992 and kind of stunned it happened again in 96, because that just wasn't supposed to happen, right?

 

2 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

I'd say that's partly because it's a first past the post system, and partly because there are only two realistic options.  The UK sometimes shows signs of the same problem, but there's still a bit of room for alternatives to the UK's political "OF".

 

I get what you're saying, but I guess it'd be worse if they didn't.

 

 

Absolutely FPtP system is a problem, as is gerrymandering, the ongoing and growing efforts at voter suppression, the electoral college, the way the US Senate is allocated and run . . .

 

We need voting reform badly but it's not happening any time soon unfortunately.

 

Apropos of this whole discussion, here's Josh Marshall on the polls recently and how turnout might affect the election. He's no oracle but I trust his read as much as anyone on stuff like this.

 

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-poll-obsessive-gives-you-a-calm-and-sober-read/sharetoken/iF1tEJQNnnSh

[Ulysses]

4 hours ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

Those were my formative years and I deeply internalized that Democrats could never actually win the White House because our party was boring and stupid.

 

Oddly enough, it was kinda the other way round for me.  I thought the Democrats were ungovernable and chaotic, or often seemed that way. I wasn't old enough to experience 1968 first hand, but I read a lot about it in my teens and twenties, and of course it was probably the most formative (and the most conflictual) Convention and nomination process in the history of the Democratic Party.  Cue the party reforms, and the 1972 campaign, probably the first modern-style primary campaign, which was dramatic and riven with conflict, and where three main candidates were almost tied in terms of popular support (though not delegate count).  In 1976, there was some semblance of party unity, but all the same the Presidential nominee (Carter) couldn't manage to secure 40% of the popular vote in the primaries.  Then in 1980 we had Edward Kennedy making a serious dent in Carter's candidacy, and only withdrawing from the Democratic nomination race at the last moment (see the pic below).  Although the primary races were gradually less conflictual in '84 and '88, you still saw nominees being sniped at by their party colleagues (to the left and the right of them), which only served to undermine Mondale and then Dukakis when the general election came around.  So throughout that time the Democrats really did seem the opposite of boring and stupid - though not necessarily in a good way.   

 

 

 

 

[FWJ]

7 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Johnson won in 1964, and didn't clear the primaries in 1968, so we can't just ignore him. I already parked Ford. 

 

All the history really means is that incumbents used to be unassailable, but that their failure rate has gone up since - quelle surprise - the turbulent 1960s.

 

 

 

Everyone who loses does so for some reason, in fairness, and not just incumbents.  Humphrey had Wallace in 1968, and we'll never know how the history of the next 12-16 years might have played out if he'd squeezed a couple of hundred hundred votes in about 3 states and finished ahead of Nixon.  Mondale and Dukakis were Mondale and Dukakis (sorry, but you know what I mean).  I watched the 1996 campaign and never believed that Dole could actually be a President, and I could scarcely believe it when Romney stayed competitive for as long as he did.

 

 

 

I'd say that's partly because it's a first past the post system, and partly because there are only two realistic options.  The UK sometimes shows signs of the same problem, but there's still a bit of room for alternatives to the UK's political "OF".

 

 

I get what you're saying, but I guess it'd be worse if they didn't.

 

There was an interesting thing on the radio (part of a series about “what ifs”) about 5 year-old Elian Gonzales who, in 1999, was rescued off the coast of Florida from a wreck that had killed his mother - they were fleeing Cuba.

After assurances he could stay with family in Florida he was in the end returned.  This led to much bad feeling in the expat Cuban diaspora in the state - which went on to be very narrowly taken by GWB in 2000 and winning him, and not Al Gore, the presidency.

 

(It’s on BBC Sounds “The Political Butterfly Effect”)

 

Edited 23 hours ago by FWJ

[Ulysses]

38 minutes ago, FWJ said:

There was an interesting thing on the radio (part of a series about “what ifs”) about 5 year-old Elian Gonzales who, in 1999, was rescued off the coast of Florida from a wreck that had killed his mother - they were fleeing Cuba.

After assurances he could stay with family in Florida he was in the end returned.  This led to much bad feeling in the expat Cuban diaspora in the state - which went on to be very narrowly taken by GWB in 2000 and winning him, and not Al Gore, the presidency.

 

(It’s on BBC Sounds “The Political Butterfly Effect”)

 

 

It's remarkable how narrow the margins can sometimes be between winning and losing, in politics as well as in sport.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, FWJ said:

There was an interesting thing on the radio (part of a series about “what ifs”) about 5 year-old Elian Gonzales who, in 1999, was rescued off the coast of Florida from a wreck that had killed his mother - they were fleeing Cuba.

After assurances he could stay with family in Florida he was in the end returned.  This led to much bad feeling in the expat Cuban diaspora in the state - which went on to be very narrowly taken by GWB in 2000 and winning him, and not Al Gore, the presidency.

 

(It’s on BBC Sounds “The Political Butterfly Effect”)

 

About a dozen things swirled around the Florida election that year. It was the Florida election, oddly, which might have tipped the Israel/Palestine situation from cautious peace process to slow and managed aggression.

 

Florida is home to the second largest population of US Jewry (the first being NY of course) and the conflict, and political positions on it, were closely watched. Clinton and Gore, to their credit, put a big emphasis on the US being a "neutral voice for peace," trying to be an impartial broker. In a debate that year, Bush attacked Gore and Clinton for this stance, saying that the US should be unambiguously standing with Israel. Because of the importance of Florida, Gore immediately mimicked him and backed off the "neutral voice" stance.

 

Now the conflict was on a knife-edge at that point, but also US politics were extremely closely watched by both sides in the region. It was around the time of that debate that the Second Intifada emerged, which led almost directly to the election of Ariel Sharon and his disengagement strategy along with the construction of the security fence. Was it Bush's cynical play for Florida votes that did it? I dunno but it sure didn't help.

 

Add to that Ralph Nader, Broward County, the hanging chads, the "Brooks Brothers riot . . . " a few thousand votes, and maybe President Gore doesn't dismantle the counterterrorism unit in early 2001. Maybe they stop 9/11. Or if they don't, President Gore almost certainly doesn't invade Iraq, a war he was against far earlier than most US politicians (including, notably, the current President). Maybe we don't normalize war crimes, maybe we actually act on climate change in the aughts. . .

 

That way lies madness...

[Mikey1874]

Just in time 

 

 

[Ulysses]

14 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Just in time 

 

 

 

 

It's another Trump scam.

 

But if the "$1.3 billion" is in DJT paper, how much is it actually worth?

[Ulysses]

9 hours ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

That way lies madness...

 

You're a Hearts supporter and posting on JKB.  What difference would a little more madness make? 

 

[Mikey1874]

More pardons needed

 

 

[Mysterion]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

It's another Trump scam.

 

But if the "$1.3 billion" is in DJT paper, how much is it actually worth?

 

Plenty of time for shorting to continue, would it be a surprise if the 1.3billion is worth virtually nothing by the time the lock up period ends ?

 

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

---PAUSE----

[Watt-Zeefuik]

6 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

You're a Hearts supporter and posting on JKB.  What difference would a little more madness make? 

 

 

It wasn't a warning, it was an offer to give directions to my current location!

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Reading a live blog of the trial, the one thing that comes across more than anything is how much of a total cheapskate Trump is. Even while Pecker was covering his ass by buying up stories, Trump kept trying to avoid paying him back for the expenses. And Pecker knows this—Cohen says, "don't worry, the boss will cover it" and Pecker replies, "when we went out to lunch, I always paid."

[Gizmo]

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

48 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

 

Yeah, the conservative judges are going to split the baby. They can't approve total Presidential immunity (because then I guess Joe Biden could just walk over to the SCOTUS and shoot a couple of them and it'd all be good) but they're going to do a procedural dance that punts it forward on the calendar.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

538 finally started up its poll average. Josh Marshall dunks on RCP's average for the same reasons I don't like it but notes, at the moment, the two are basically in exactly the same place. (the tiniest of Trump leads nationally)

 

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/our-long-national-rcp-nightmare-is-over/sharetoken/5JZFnvoDLvzA