Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[drogulus]

Your dream of a single party state may be deferred a while longer than you hope.

      It just won't do to make excuses for the Repubs or to claim that criticism is partisan. They're too far gone for that. Can't you see that a party that has Trump in the middle is a very different beast from one that can shake him off before the damage is done? The normalizing of Trumplicanism is damaging evidence for the realism of my view no matter what I dream.

[Todd]

The normalizing of Trumplicanism is damaging evidence for the realism of my view no matter what I dream.

Well at least you admit that you dream of a one party state.  Your assertion of Trumplicanism, which is really too ungainly to catch on, might be something to take seriously if he gets the nod.  (Maybe "Trumpism" will work, but then that falls into the Trotsky trap of calling everything an "ism".)

[drogulus]

     Could Trump beat Hillary? Perhaps if at their debate meeting she drinks from a silver goblet the blood of a 12 year old virgin and loudly smacks her lips she might lose 5 points in the overnights. Embarrassing as such a spectacle might be thought to be, I doubt there would be any permanent harm.

Well at least you admit that you dream of a one party state. 

     You mean in the sense of wanting one? I thought it was clear the collapse of traditional Republicanism was a bad thing. Of course I don't know what will replace it, but there should be 2 parties at least bidding to govern a democracy.

[Todd]

Could Trump beat Hillary?

No.

You mean in the sense of wanting one? I thought it was clear the collapse of traditional Republicanism was a bad thing. Of course I don't know what will replace it, but there should be 2 parties at least bidding to govern a democracy.

Ah, yes, the common lefty lament about how the Republican party has lost its way, and how if only the Republicans of old would come back, everything would be better.  Having political opponents that meet your criteria of what your opponents should be like is one party thinking in a poor disguise.  You don't get to choose your opponents.

[Daverz]

Perhaps, but that looks more like wishful thinking on your part than a meaningful prognostication.  Demographic trends are well known by everyone.  And let's not forget that it is the Republicans who have two Hispanics, and an African American, and a woman all running for the top job right now,

Yeah, the Democrats should get hip and actually run a non-white candidate for a change.

I think the demographic trends are more about party identification of voters in aggregate.  Do you believe that they are more about voters' ethnic and gender affinity with individual candidates?

(The discussion of demographics tends to annoy me somewhat, because it doesn't mean anything if you can't get these new voters to vote.)

Rubio might win back some of the Hispanic vote if he tacks back to his previous, more conciliatory rhetoric on immigration.  But that's going to be hard after Trump's antics have tainted the whole field.  Rubio may be the least unappealing candidate the Republicans have, though. 

I don't think Fiorina would excite many women who are aren't already inclined to vote GOP.

Cruz and Carson are simply too nuts to win, I hope. 

And while it's early yet, Trump is still the front-runner.

[Todd]

Yeah, the Democrats should get hip and actually run a non-white candidate for a change.

It worked for them before.

I think the demographic trends are more about party identification of voters in aggregate.

The demography argument, as it is typically presented, is based on identity politics.  Since minority/marginalized group X votes for Democrats now, the Republicans are doomed as the white population shrinks.  There is some truth to it.  Native born blacks are not likely going to vote for Republicans, for instance.  However, the bigger electoral prizes of Hispanics for the next two or three decades, and then native born and immigrant Asians along with African immigrants thereafter are more up for grabs.  A combination of candidates and policies will make a difference.  Policies designed to appeal to specific constituencies are more effective overall, but sometimes individual candidates can help immensely.

[Brian]

It worked for them before.

Well, we've had this conversation before, but in 2020 or 2024, the Democrat crew will be led by Julian Castro, Joaquin Castro, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and maybe Hakeem Jeffries. Their whitest future leader looks to be jazz composer, part-Mexican, and NAACP Man of the Year Eric Garcetti.

[Brian]

I came here to post this picture because it amuses me. I don't mean it to be against any particular person or group. More like all of 'em.

[Karl Henning]

I love the talking heads on Fox who consider that the debate was a failure, because the candidates didn't devolve into a food fight but chose instead to, erm, debate.  I think it borderline sad that everybody (yes, that's probably a rhetorical exaggeration) in the media seem to be playing Sanders' line as "a defense of" Hillary, rather than what it plainly seemed to me:  a polite-ish refusal to engage in a dogfight, and a call for the discussion of issues.

(I disagree that this has "neutralized" the scandal for Hillary;  I do think it was characteristically decent of Sanders.)

[Brian]

I love the talking heads on Fox who consider that the debate was a failure, because the candidates didn't devolve into a food fight but chose instead to, erm, debate.  I think it borderline sad that everybody (yes, that's probably a rhetorical exaggeration) in the media seem to be playing Sanders' line as "a defense of" Hillary, rather than what it plainly seemed to me:  a polite-ish refusal to engage in a dogfight, and a call for the discussion of issues.

(I disagree that this has "neutralized" the scandal for Hillary;  I do think it was characteristically decent of Sanders.)

The difference in tone/tenor between the two parties' debates is simply massive. Especially if you ignore Jim Webb's weirdness. With the exceptions of Kasich, Rubio, and Webb, it's almost as if the two sets of debaters are running for entirely different offices.

[Todd]

Well, we've had this conversation before, but in 2020 or 2024, the Democrat crew will be led by Julian Castro, Joaquin Castro, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and maybe Hakeem Jeffries. Their whitest future leader looks to be jazz composer, part-Mexican, and NAACP Man of the Year Eric Garcetti.

2020 is too soon for the people mentioned to be the senior-most Democrats, though at least one or two will be more influential.  2024 is two lifetimes away.

I love the talking heads on Fox who consider that the debate was a failure, because the candidates didn't devolve into a food fight but chose instead to, erm, debate.

Since I watched only part, I can't say it was a failure.  In fact, I see it as something of a success.  The gun control debate portion was great in that this is one area where Sanders is closer to the middle than the others on stage.  If Sanders stays a threat, Hillary can go after him on that in her own party, but then the Republicans have something (else) they can use against her next year.  They will have to avoid going too far, and they should be careful not to go whole hog with idiotic ideas like arming teachers, but it can become a 2016 issue.  Democrats have tried to keep this less of an issue for a while.

[San Antone]

The difference in tone/tenor between the two parties' debates is simply massive. Especially if you ignore Jim Webb's weirdness. With the exceptions of Kasich, Rubio, and Webb, it's almost as if the two sets of debaters are running for entirely different offices.

I did not watch but for about 15-20 minutes.  During that time I saw Jim Webb speak but he did not come off as weird.  What are you referring to, maybe I missed it.

[Daverz]

It worked for them before.

Apparently running a non-white candidate is only cynical when Democrats do it.

The demography argument, as it is typically presented, is based on identity politics.  Since minority/marginalized group X votes for Democrats now, the Republicans are doomed as the white population shrinks.  There is some truth to it.  Native born blacks are not likely going to vote for Republicans, for instance. 

The GOP started losing the African-American vote when they started to court the segregationist vote (starting at least as early as 64 with Goldwater and continuing with the Southern Strategy).  Trying to appeal to both is not possible.

However, the bigger electoral prizes of Hispanics for the next two or three decades, and then native born and immigrant Asians along with African immigrants thereafter are more up for grabs.  A combination of candidates and policies will make a difference.  Policies designed to appeal to specific constituencies are more effective overall, but sometimes individual candidates can help immensely.

The GOP would have to tone the xenophobia way down first.  Unfortunately, I think the pressure will be to ramp it up even more hysterically.

[Todd]

Apparently running a non-white candidate is only cynical when Democrats do it.

Nope, it's wonderfully cynical when Republicans do it, too.  Maybe even more so.

The GOP would have to tone the xenophobia way down first.  Unfortunately, I think the pressure will be to ramp it up even more hysterically.

In the short term (next few cycles), nativism will continue play a big role nationally, and for a longer period in certain areas, but Republican organizational leadership knows the reality on the ground.  Reince Priebus - like him, hate him, don't care about him - recently gave a speech to local Republicans, and one of the big foci of the RNC is winning Hispanic votes.  There's sometimes a disparity between what's on TV and what's being done away from the cameras.  It will take time, money, and effort, but it will happen, if gradually, and incompletely.  The goal will probably never be to win a majority of <insert minority voting block here>, but rather to target subsets sufficient to combine with the existing base to win elections.  That's fine.

[drogulus]

Ah, yes, the common lefty lament about how the Republican party has lost its way, and how if only the Republicans of old would come back, everything would be better. 

It's not the lament only of lefties. I'd like to see Republican voters come back to Republicans and de-Gohmertize the party. I wouldn't think that if I only had ill will. My ill will is directed elsewhere. Besides, there's no issue that doesn't have a solution that favors one ideological segment or other. My positions mostly compose my ideology rather than the other way, so I'm free to be as much of a fukin' warmonger as I like without reference to what Bernie thinks, and support tax cuts because Art Laffer was partly right, proudly wave the flag of American Exceptionalism on a case by case basis. I'm a Red blooded Commie Patriot SuperCapitalist and I want to see you dance! *

     * That's right, it's an old movie quote. Hint: Brian Cox played Trotsky, Tom Baker was Rasputin.

[Todd]

It's not the lament only of lefties.

It pretty much is.  You've mentioned Representative Gohmert twice now, indicating a notable level if interest in him.  He won't be around forever, and in the interim he and others like him can prove useful.

Now that you have revealed that you not only support MMT theories, but also the Laffer Curve, it can be concluded that you decidedly prefer utterly reckless economic theories.  Good to know.

[Brian]

I did not watch but for about 15-20 minutes.  During that time I saw Jim Webb speak but he did not come off as weird.  What are you referring to, maybe I missed it.

He alluded to his experiences in the Vietnam War but for some reason decided to play them as a laugh line rather than a serious story.

[Ken B]

He alluded to his experiences in the Vietnam War but for some reason decided to play them as a laugh line rather than a serious story.

Refused to milk it the way some others might?

[drogulus]

      You can't disappear the Klown Kaucus that easily.There are bunch of these guys, I named one. They have been around forever, 10 minutes is too long.

      It's not a Commie plot that Republicans are deemed to be evil shitheads and stupid to boot. They did a lot of work to accomplish that, so show some respect.

[Todd]

      You can't disappear the Klown Kaucus that easily.There are bunch of these guys, I named one. They have been around forever, 10 minutes is too long.

      It's not a Commie plot that Republicans are deemed to be evil shitheads and stupid to boot. They did a lot of work to accomplish that, so show some respect.

Right.