Rats Fleeing the Sinking Ship

[hollodero]

(01-07-2021, 11:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Saving face is exactly what it is,  But at the end of the day what really matters is this is the death knell of Trumpism.

45% of Republican voters, so I heard, are totally fine with storming the Capitol. A number that makes them the biggest and deciding voting block within the party. To me it seems quite likely they go for the next incediary populist in the next primaries. And so do party members who eye these votes and imho will keep pursuing them.

If it were a death knell, this number would have to be way lower than 45%. I get polls are often pretty questionable these days, but if anything the real number probably is higher than lower.

[GMDino]

(01-08-2021, 10:15 AM)hollodero Wrote: 45% of Republican voters, so I heard, are totally fine with storming the Capitol. A number that makes them the biggest and deciding voting block within the party. To me it seems quite likely they go for the next incediary populist in the next primaries. And so do party members who eye these votes and imho will keep pursuing them.

If it were a death knell, this number would have to be way lower than 45%. I get polls are often pretty questionable these days, but if anything the real number probably is higher than lower.

I shared a story about a former PA legislator who resigned from an adjunct teaching position at a local college because he posted "we" are storming the capital....who is "with us".

Immediately the Trump supporters on my timeline (who now identify as "conservative instead") attacked me for saying I must have thought he needed investigated only because he was republican, the attack wasn't as bad as anything that happened in the last year (I'm assuming they mean covid restrictions taking away muh freedom!), and that Antifa was really behind it all.  I told them to take it up with him and the school.  But it shows they aren't going to simply hold people accountable for their own actions let alone give up on Trump and whatever they think he stood for (America First?).  

That 45% will remain for quite awhile.  If Trump campaigns for anyone in 2022 will be the tell if anything changes over time.

[hollodero]

(01-08-2021, 10:22 AM)GMDino Wrote: That 45% will remain for quite awhile.  If Trump campaigns for anyone in 2022 will be the tell if anything changes over time.

Spoiler alert, it won't. I really hope I'm wrong on that. But I'm not.

It's similar in Europe, we are not that different people after all. All these right-wing populist parties have a base of up to 25% of the total populace. We do have the advantage through our election system that this usually amounts to a 25% party that can be ignored. The way populists and conservatives are lumped together in the US, however, makes this 1/4 block a potentially election-deciding factor.

If Trump were to run in 2024, I can not imagine a more moderate candidate standing a chance in the primary. Same goes fpr someone like him.

[GMDino]

(01-08-2021, 10:36 AM)hollodero Wrote: Spoiler alert, it won't. I really hope I'm wrong on that. But I'm not.

It's similar in Europe, we are not that different people after all. All these right-wing populist parties have a base of up to 25% of the total populace. We do have the advantage through our election system that this usually amounts to a 25% party that can be ignored. The way populists and conservatives are lumped together in the US, however, makes this 1/4 block a potentially election-deciding factor.

If Trump were to run in 2024, I can not imagine a more moderate candidate standing a chance in the primary. Same goes fpr someone like him.

I'm unfamiliar with the politics there but more aware of the "cult of personality" politics (and cults in general) here in the states.  One person can be very influential here.  Reagan, Trump...they pulled to the party based on themselves more than their policies.  Obama too to a certain extent.

As others have noted though we (Americans) do have a tendency to swing back and forth by taking one part of the legislature from D to R fairly regularly.

I just feel Trump and his "brand" is in very deep in the psyche of his followers.  More so than any other person or party.

[Belsnickel]

(01-07-2021, 11:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Saving face is exactly what it is, But at the end of the day what really matters is this is the death knell of Trumpism.

So, some of this has already been said, but I'll just add to the voices of skepticism that it isn't. Trumpism isn't really Trumpism. Trump is a symptom of a far greater problem where a large swath of citizens feel like the government isn't working for them. We have seen evidence of that in this thread. This is what caused the rise of Trumpism and also the far-left push. These are people that are tired of the corporatism that has been the hallmark of American politics since at least the '70s.

What we see with Trump is especially problematic because it is based on lies and disinformation, which is again on display in this thread. Trump is a symbol, but they will find a new rallying point. The question becomes whether or not the GOP ignores or embraces them. That remains to be seen.

[hollodero]

(01-08-2021, 10:54 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'm unfamiliar with the politics there but more aware of the "cult of personality" politics (and cults in general) here in the states.  One person can be very influential here.  Reagan, Trump...they pulled to the party based on themselves more than their policies.  Obama too to a certain extent.

Guess in part that's what your way of electing a president creates, it is pretty much designed to become a personality cult of some sorts. I don't quite think that one person is so utterly important for "Trumpism" as people believe though. Could be Hawleyism soon, if the (also quite unprecedented) money and media machinery throws itself behind it. Trump did not create Trump, the media did.

But the underlying reasons are pretty much the same. Create enemies that block you in life and are responsible for everything bad, and then put every information into that prefixed world view. Then even someone so apparently flawed as Trump can be the saviour, if people only want him to be. And with the bubble-creating social media, truth does not even play a big role in that process.

(01-08-2021, 10:54 AM)GMDino Wrote: As others have noted though we (Americans) do have a tendency to swing back and forth by taking one part of the legislature from D to R fairly regularly.

Sure, but that's engrained in the system. Opposition is always easier, and with two parties that means a permanent swinging. Imho an underappreciated reason for Trump is the 8-year presidential tenure of the democrats. It was bound to switch sides again.

(01-08-2021, 10:54 AM)GMDino Wrote: I just feel Trump and his "brand" is in very deep in the psyche of his followers.  More so than any other person or party.

Understood, but imho they can make a switch to someone else fairly easily.

[BmorePat87]

(01-08-2021, 10:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: I had a thought this morning as I listened to one of the podcasts I follow:

Do you think Trump had/has a plan to step down Jan 20, get Pence quickly sworn in and have Pence issue the pardons for him and his family/cronies and then not only be able to skate but take a bunch of attention away from Biden/Harris?

That's the kind of crazy think he would do.  I don't know if Pence will want to follow through with it after the events of 1/6 but you never know.

I think Matt said this before, but I'd rather he try a self pardon just so the issue can be adjudicated. 

[Au165]

White House counsel is now considering leaving too. That one is a little scary because if the counsel is considering leaving it means he thinks some pretty illegal shit may go down between now and the 20th.

[fredtoast]

(01-08-2021, 01:12 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Not to mention the tax cuts ballooned the deficit and completely diminished our ability to respond to the inevitable recession once the credit bubble bursts. 

And no one mentions that Trump's plan was to take the tax cuts away from the middle class individuals as soon as he left office in 2025, but the cuts for businesses were to remain in place.

He did not mind blowing up the deficit as long as it made him look good and helped the economy while he was in office, but when he was gone then "Screw 'em!"

[fredtoast]

(01-08-2021, 11:01 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, some of this has already been said, but I'll just add to the voices of skepticism that it isn't. Trumpism isn't really Trumpism. Trump is a symptom of a far greater problem where a large swath of citizens feel like the government isn't working for them. We have seen evidence of that in this thread. This is what caused the rise of Trumpism and also the far-left push. These are people that are tired of the corporatism that has been the hallmark of American politics since at least the '70s.

What we see with Trump is especially problematic because it is based on lies and disinformation, which is again on display in this thread. Trump is a symbol, but they will find a new rallying point. The question becomes whether or not the GOP ignores or embraces them. That remains to be seen.

And thy have a valid point.  The problem is that different politicians take advantage of the problem by blaming it on immigrants or the "lazy poor".

Both parties are bound to big business.  The main reason Obama came up with the ACA instead of a government run program was to appease the multi-billion dollar health insurance industry.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-08-2021, 10:15 AM)hollodero Wrote: 45% of Republican voters, so I heard, are totally fine with storming the Capitol. A number that makes them the biggest and deciding voting block within the party. To me it seems quite likely they go for the next incediary populist in the next primaries. And so do party members who eye these votes and imho will keep pursuing them.

If it were a death knell, this number would have to be way lower than 45%. I get polls are often pretty questionable these days, but if anything the real number probably is higher than lower.

You misunderstand.  The attitudes and beliefs won't change, but Trump is a nonviable entity at this point.  Emulating him is as well.  The GOP would flat out prohibit him from being in their primary henceforth.  That's what I meant in that regard.  The voters will remain the voters, but they won't have Trump, or a Trump clone, to vote for.

[hollodero]

(01-08-2021, 01:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You misunderstand.  The attitudes and beliefs won't change, but Trump is a nonviable entity at this point.  Emulating him is as well.  The GOP would flat out prohibit him from being in their primary henceforth.  That's what I meant in that regard.  The voters will remain the voters, but they won't have Trump, or a Trump clone, to vote for.

I see why they might not have Trump. Maybe he is done, I don't know, I've learned to be careful about that prediction. I do not see why they might not have a Trump clone though. That only differs from Trump by not being so awfully clumsy.

When you have a 45% number of party voters approving of a Capitol storm, then why would any Trump clone be a non-viable entity. That is the 55% party voter's opinion maybe, and the opinion of non-party voters, but the 45% voting power bloc within the party would still remain, and so would the GOP members going after their vote by pandering to their ideas. I don't see how a slightly smarter Trump clone would get banned from the primary, in fact I see such a person win any primary easily, just like Trump did. And to me and many, Trump appeared to be a non-viable entity back then too. This is tough to claim with certainty.

But just for thought, if Don jr. or that Hawley guy (that is the one I'm eyeing, but whatever) were in a GOP primary at this very moment in time for whatever reason, you think the GOP electorate would thoroughly rebuff them?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-08-2021, 02:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: I see why they might not have Trump. Maybe he is done, I don't know, I've learned to be careful about that prediction. I do not see why they might not have a Trump clone though. That only differs from Trump by not being so awfully clumsy.

I suppose this brings us into the subjective and semantic realm of what constitutes a Trump "clone".  For many left leaning people simply being more concerned about the United States than having a globalist outlook would be enough to apply the label.  Quite honestly, most of Trump's positions weren't that radical or far from traditional GOP orthodoxy.  Where he really differed was in his petty vindictiveness and crude conduct.  Essentially, for many, simply espousing traditional conservative positions would be enough as well.

Quote:When you have a 45% number of party voters approving of a Capitol storm, then why would any Trump clone be a non-viable entity. That is the 55% party voter's opinion maybe, and the opinion of non-party voters, but the 45% voting power bloc within the party would still remain, and so would the GOP members going after their vote by pandering to their ideas. I don't see how a slightly smarter Trump clone would get banned from the primary, in fact I see such a person win any primary easily, just like Trump did. And to me and many, Trump appeared to be a non-viable entity back then too. This is tough to claim with certainty.

Yeah, which again goes back to the above.  Simply wanting existing immigration laws enforced is enough for many people to label you a far right racist.  This makes it difficult to quantify what would make someone realistically qualify as a clone.

Quote:But just for thought, if Don jr. or that Hawley guy (that is the one I'm eyeing, but whatever) were in a GOP primary at this very moment in time for whatever reason, you think the GOP electorate would thoroughly rebuff them?

The Trump family is persona non grata at this point, and I don't see that ever changing, at least not until Barron is old enough to run.

[Belsnickel]

(01-08-2021, 01:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And thy have a valid point.  The problem is that different politicians take advantage of the problem by blaming it on immigrants or the "lazy poor".

Both parties are bound to big business.  The main reason Obama came up with the ACA instead of a government run program was to appease the multi-billion dollar health insurance industry.

Oh, one need only look at my post history and you can see my position on this issue. I understand the feeling of disenfranchisement. In fact, Virginia recently passed an amendment to require a redistricting commission for next year. Well, of the 8 citizens appointed (the commission has 8 citizens and 8 legislators, with a partisan split for each), guess what region of the Commonwealth wasn't represented? Mine, which is gerrymandered all to hell.

But anyway, that's just a little tangential rant. The long and short is that the rise of populism, both on the left and the right, is based on the same, legitimate grievances. They are just manifesting differently.

[fredtoast]

(01-08-2021, 03:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  The long and short is that the rise of populism, both on the left and the right, is based on the same, legitimate grievances. They are just manifesting differently.

[hollodero]

(01-08-2021, 02:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I suppose this brings us into the subjective and semantic realm of what constitutes a Trump "clone".  For many left leaning people simply being more concerned about the United States than having a globalist outlook would be enough to apply the label.  Quite honestly, most of Trump's positions weren't that radical or far from traditional GOP orthodoxy.  Where he really differed was in his petty vindictiveness and crude conduct.  Essentially, for many, simply espousing traditional conservative positions would be enough as well.

Well, I would consider a border wall or family separation policies somewhat radical, but I get your point. To me it is indeed not so much about political positions. It's about traits like complete abandonment of truth, the peddling of dark and cynical conspiracies, the total villification of all political or personal foes, the authoritarian tendencies a la "Article 2 lets me do what I want" and so on. In my view it's about extreme measures, in word and deed, to cling to power and subvert democracy or the rule of law. A person with such ambitions is what I considered a "Trump clone", someone with all these traits.

(01-08-2021, 02:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The Trump family is persona non grata at this point, and I don't see that ever changing, at least not until Barron is old enough to run.

My question would still be, persona non grata with whom? Moderates and liberals, in the end. He did not really need those people's appreciation before. I feel his so-called base still would secure him the GOP nomination, grata or non grata.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-08-2021, 10:11 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, I would consider a border wall or family separation policies somewhat radical, but I get your point. To me it is indeed not so much about political positions. It's about traits like complete abandonment of truth, the peddling of dark and cynical conspiracies, the total villification of all political or personal foes, the authoritarian tendencies a la "Article 2 lets me do what I want" and so on. In my view it's about extreme measures, in word and deed, to cling to power and subvert democracy or the rule of law. A person with such ambitions is what I considered a "Trump clone", someone with all these traits.

There's been a wall at large sections of that border for decades, but I would agree on the family separation part.  As for the rest, I would agree as well, but I don't see someone being as overt in that regard again for some time.

Quote:My question would still be, persona non grata with whom? Moderates and liberals, in the end. He did not really need those people's appreciation before. I feel his so-called base still would secure him the GOP nomination, grata or non grata.

Everyone at this point.  All the GOP has to do is refuse to let someone run on their ticket and they can't, votes be damned.  Political parties are private entities, they don't have to let anyone run on their ticket that they don't want to.  

[*Nately120*]

(01-08-2021, 10:11 PM)hollodero Wrote: My question would still be, persona non grata with whom? Moderates and liberals, in the end. He did not really need those people's appreciation before. I feel his so-called base still would secure him the GOP nomination, grata or non grata.

Never say never, but if the GOP is legitimately going to pin their hopes on stopping democrats on a guy who already got curb stomped by a nearly 80-year old Joe Biden then they can have at it.  I think a lot of republicans are going to get cold feet and trusting Trump to be their champion against another 4 years of liberal rule. Plus if he loses he can just claim he won all 50 states and then demand his followers give him another $300,000,000 to fight the injustice yet again...seems like he might rather lose in that case. No one with an actual mind for politics is getting into bed with him again.

Republicans are pretty good at playing the game, and any republican nominee worth his salt is going to point out that Trump paved the way for a Biden presidency.  This is also assuming Trump can maintain the façade that he's a republican for the next 4 years.  Last I checked his followers were chanting for the deaths of multiple high-ranking republican politicians.

[hollodero]

(01-11-2021, 01:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's been a wall at large sections of that border for decades, but I would agree on the family separation part.  As for the rest, I would agree as well, but I don't see someone being as overt in that regard again for some time.

Yeah well you had walls, but 2.000 miles of wall costing 20 billions to erect and God knows what to maintain is a different thing. He also wanted Mexico to pay for it, then he wanted it to be a solar wall, then a see-through wall so people don't get killed by heavy bags of drugs thrown over it. OK it turned from radical into ridiculous at that point, but mainstream it was not, imho. But that is a side topic anyways and I actually see your point there too.
To your last sentence, I hope you are right. I admit the next person trying to go for absolute power (which Trump definitely did, in word and attempt) has to be a bit more sly and coy about it, but I wouldn't rule the attempt out at all. It seems too doable in this climate and unter this circumstances.
This, of course, is based on my belief that at least half of Trump voters would be totally fine with forbidding the democratic party and installing a one-party, strongman system.

(01-11-2021, 01:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Everyone at this point.  All the GOP has to do is refuse to let someone run on their ticket and they can't, votes be damned.  Political parties are private entities, they don't have to let anyone run on their ticket that they don't want to.  

I get that. But refusing to let said Trump clone as defined run would also potentially split the party. And I see GOP leadership to be afraid of that, just as they were afraid of it 4 years ago. Admittedly, Trump "only" had some red flags like birther conspiracies or a scam university or a vile rhetoric or obviously moronic statements against him back then (so less than now), but if that wasn't enough to expel him from the primaries, I wonder if the current state of affairs really would be. I doubt it based on the cowardice and bending over this party did for four years now to appease Trump and his electorate.
Maybe it cannot be Trump himself any more. But someone quite similar to Trump would potentially still rock the primaries, and if expelled by the RNC get enough support to run on his own. But I hope I am wrong on that one too, for sure.

[hollodero]

(01-11-2021, 01:30 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Never say never, but if the GOP is legitimately going to pin their hopes on stopping democrats on a guy who already got curb stomped by a nearly 80-year old Joe Biden then they can have at it.

Yeah the GOP would probably prefer someone else, but this is not about the GOP, but the voters who still love Trump and to a somewhat large extent (45% of Trump voters) are fine with a Capitol storm.
And see above, then I don't see the RNC just expelling such a candidate who can mobilize such large parts of the electorate and potentially split the party. As you said yourself, Trump voters vote GOP because of him and call everyone opposed to Trump a RINO, and their numbers are high enough to imho warrant such fears of a split. At least I thiunk that what the RNC would consider and fear.