Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Karl Henning]

A piece by (let us say) an interested party opines that Clinton's goal is to land Sanders a political knockout punch today.

[Todd]

As John Oliver put it on Sunday, "you are either racist, or you are pretending to be, and at some point, there is no difference there. And sure, he disavowed David Duke later in the day, but the scary thing is, we have no way of knowing which of his inconsistent views he will hold in office."

Trump's garbled speechifying and responses are tailor made for later denials and flip-flops.  If he gets the nomination, and Democrats attack him on this issue - which they should - he'll no doubt change his approach, and take on something closer to, but not exactly like, his prior opinion on the matter. 

If this campaign has revealed anything, it's that Trump can literally say anything he wants and get away with it.  Scott Adams' analysis of Trump is turning out to be more accurate than expected. 

It's obvious that there is no way to know which views Trump will adhere to, because his views are purposely vague or non-sensical.  I mean, aside from winning and making America great again.

[Karl Henning]

Everything is negotiable. Especially my morals.

[Pat B]

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism

[Todd]

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism

There's some truth to the article.  This quote is useful, its platitudinous opening notwithstanding:

"This is, after all, a time of social change in America. The country is becoming more diverse, which means that many white Americans are confronting race in a way they have never had to before. Those changes have been happening for a long time, but in recent years they have become more visible and harder to ignore. And they are coinciding with economic trends that have squeezed working-class white people."

I suspect increasing racial diversity will lead not to a more peaceful, accepting society, but rather a more fractured, divided one in coming decades.  Trump isn't the first, nor the worst, politician to capitalize on this.  More will follow, in both major parties, or in the Democratic party and the Republican party replacement(s) should it disappear.  It will be more prominent in right-wing parties, but beware the left-wing authoritarian when he or she appears.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I suspect increasing racial diversity will lead not to a more peaceful, accepting society, but rather a more fractured, divided one in coming decades. 

History suggests that's the way to bet (see under: Roman Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Ottoman Empire, etc.). The USA is not officially constituted as an empire, but it often functions like one.

[Brian]

I suspect increasing racial diversity will lead not to a more peaceful, accepting society, but rather a more fractured, divided one in coming decades.

This is a book you might find rewarding - and which will partially confirm that sentiment.



http://www.amazon.com/Racism-without-Racists-Color-Blind-Persistence/dp/1442220554/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

One of the salient arguments is that our society will integrate new arrivals into our currently existing race systems - so the "white" bracket might include "honorary whites" like the Japanese, while Vietnamese and other migrants might be lumped into the bottom tier. In other words, we'll be a more diverse society, but that will also entail the opportunity to discriminate subtly against an ever-greater number of people.

[Todd]

so the "white" bracket might include "honorary whites"

The inclusion of the currently intellectually fashionable concept of "honorary whites" kills off the appeal of any such work immediately and completely.

[Brian]

The inclusion of the currently intellectually fashionable concept of "honorary whites" kills off the appeal of any such work immediately and completely.

Uh...well in his defense, that quote came from me. I read the book 2 years ago, I don't recall the specific language he used in that kind of detail.

[Todd]

Uh...well in his defense, that quote came from me. I read the book 2 years ago, I don't recall the specific language he used in that kind of detail.

Well, that improves the chances I might read the work.  Did I mention that I detest the phrase "honorary whites"? 

[Pat B]

There's some truth to the article.

I found it interesting, but I'm not sure why. A lot of it actually seemed pretty obvious (e.g. that the old law-and-order crowd, those who prioritize obedience in child-raising, the gay marriage opponents, and the racial profilers are all largely the same people).

[Brian]

I found it interesting, but I'm not sure why. A lot of it actually seemed pretty obvious (e.g. that the old law-and-order crowd, those who prioritize obedience in child-raising, the gay marriage opponents, and the racial profilers are all largely the same people).

I'm halfway through it now. And like you, I find a lot of it pretty obvious - there is definitely past research which shows that certain political leanings value loyalty, faith, and law-and-order more than certain other political leanings. Also, the author's tic-like habit of saying "this is perfectly expressed in...Donald Trump!!!" every three paragraphs suggests that the argument is not as cogent as it could be. But there is, regardless, a lot in here which is very compelling.

EDIT: One thing that's interesting is how the article serves as a reminder that political parties can change, often dramatically. The emphasis that this "authoritarian" bent is a result of the Southern Strategy underscores how we can all have generalizations about the political parties, but those generalizations weren't necessarily always true, and they may not be true 15-20 years from now. Parties do realign. A companion piece over at 538 this week suggests that if Trump wins the nomination, the Republican Party may be realigning again.

[Spineur]

This comes from a London pub.  That must feel really good to relieve oneself there ....

[kishnevi]

Is there any doubt that a lot of what Trump does is an act?  He has honed his act after years in the spotlight and on TV.  Look at the David Duke situation.  Trump addressed this very topic, quite differently, when he considered running for the Reform Party nomination.  Clips from back then have been running, showing he is fully aware of Duke and his positions.  Perhaps he misjudged the Duke situation - but then he made the gaffe/stumble/whatever you call it the weekend before a lot of white southerners vote.  Could be coincidence. 

What are Trump's real stances on issues?  Does anyone know, other than Trump?

Does Trump know?

I despise Hillary and this time last year was looking forward to voting GOP for the first time.  Now it looks like  I will be voting for Hillary simply because she at least knows what being President involves.  I can't envisage as President a man who seems to think serial bankruptcy is a good business strategy and intemperate insults and bluster are the best form of diplomacy. (Perhaps he is modelling himself on the Kims of Pyongyang.)

[Todd]

I despise Hillary and this time last year was looking forward to voting GOP for the first time.  Now it looks like  I will be voting for Hillary simply because she at least knows what being President involves.

If Trump wins the nomination, I'm going the write-in route.  I can never vote for Hillary, though she would be better than Trump.

[kishnevi]

If Trump wins the nomination, I'm going the write-in route.  I can never vote for Hillary, though she would be better than Trump.

The last three outings I voted for Libertarian.  I might do it again. But living in Florida I do not have the luxury of being in an overwhelmingly blue or red state.

But since I am registered as a Democrat, I will vote for Sanders next week (early voting starts on Saturday) simply because he is not Hillary.

[drogulus]

      I voted for Sanders today, though all things considered I prefer Hillary as the eventual nominee. See, the Bernie revolution from below doesn't have to have much Bernie in it, but it has to have Bernie voters in it. So it's Bernie today to bolster the liberals who favor liberal policy, then Hillary in Nov. for the win. The liberal policy part is a bank shot. No one knows for sure what it will take, so you have to try stuff. The left is trending strong now for the Dems and a measure of dissatisfaction with stand-patty defensive liberalism is putting some wind in our sails.

      I like Hillary, I like her unlikeability, which is reassuring. It means something that such a disliked pol is so respected, possibly as much by her enemies as her idolatrous inner circle. How does she do it? Big Bill had charisma to burn, Hillary has none to spare (though I have to admit she was in good form tonight, she looked positively human!).

[Florestan]

The last three outings I voted for Libertarian.  [...] I am registered as a Democrat.

That´s like being registered as a New Atheist and voting for Christian Democracy.   

[Madiel]

One of the many memes doing the rounds today suggests that Sanders is what the Democratic Party ought to be like, and Clinton is what the Republican Party ought to be like.

[Karl Henning]

Cruz's wins in Texas, Oklahoma & Alaska mean that it probably will not winnow down to a two-man race—and Trump will continue rolling to the nomination.

Clinton had a strong but not crushing day.  One pundit was trying to build a projection on the fact that Sanders, speaking in Vermont, did not mention any other state where he expected to win.