|
Roland Jones posted:I might just be optimistic, but I'm feeling like Hillary's going to get two terms. I mean, the Republicans might learn their lesson here, but you'd have thought they'd do that in 2012, and instead we got Trump. Their big positions like opposition to gay marriage, drugs, trans people's existence, and abortion are only going to get more unpopular in the meantime, too, particularly with fuckups like McCrory doing their thing and screwing over their states. If they don't ditch the albatross of social conservatism they shouldn't be able to recover any time soon, and with things like Mylan and insulin providers killing people for profit economic conservatism isn't doing too hot either. They need to reform or at least realign, and with the religious right and other social conservatives making up a sizable portion of their base that might not be possible. Also, four years of Hillary, coming after her saving the country from having to exist under Donald Trump, will hopefully show people that she's not that bad, at least compared to the alternative. I think people will remember it, but also remember that poor whites are shrinking by about 1% a year currently. In four years the republicans may not be able to win the white house with the numbers they have. In 2024 they may not be able to win the presidency at all and will only be relevant at the state and local level until they bring in some new blood. To put that in perspective when GWB won in 2000 he had roughly 16% more votes as a baseline. The republicans are not replenishing their numbers and instead losing further numbers by driving minority voters not only away but to the democrats, damaging themselves twice as hard. It's like that the party found out they're bleeding and instead of patching it decides to cut themselves more and deeper.
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 08:58 |
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:My only hope is that if PJ is correct, that it goes further, smashes the GOP and we can have a total realignment. The GOP in a few years becomes a party that I could see myself voting for because they're no longer racist, sexist, homophobic, wealth hording or bedroom invading. Maybe they're a little lovely, but I'd no longer be trapped voting for democrats because they're not totally incompetent and abusive. Sup fellow poli sci degree haver. Been a rough year, huh? PJ seems to have the sociology and psychology of narcissism and mental illness down pat, sure, but predicting that the election turns into a full anti-GOP wave isn't exactly in her wheelhouse. Unfortunately Clinton's campaign itself has given a hand to the GOP in uncoupling itself from Trump and the media and the voters are too enthralled by the unravelling disaster to remember that one of the major parties in the country has committed massive electoral and moral malpractice by nominating an unprepared and unfit person. The country is incredibly polarized and we're going to see a lot of ticket splitting with Rs voting downballot. My only caveat/hope is that if Trump really falls to his 40% or below floor by election day, Rs will just stay home. Even then, the structural disadvantage in the House is too much to overcome. And the state GOPs are still doing strong and have control of multiple state legislatures, after all. Everyone in the GOP will pretend Trump never happened and they'll get away with it for now, until the demographic juggernaut eats them whole in the 2020s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 10:19
|
|
|
Once Donald Trump goes down in flames, I expect Republicans to realize that they cannot win solely on a platform of racism and hate, and I fully expect them to nominate David Duke in 2020 anyways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:I think people will remember it, but also remember that poor whites are shrinking by about 1% a year currently. In four years the republicans may not be able to win the white house with the numbers they have. In 2024 they may not be able to win the presidency at all and will only be relevant at the state and local level until they bring in some new blood. Oh, right, that too. Demographics are loving them harder and harder. They're going to be hard to oust from state governments (though a liberal Supreme Court just outright ruling against gerrymandering might help, and is one of my dreams for a Hillary presidency), but the Oval Office might be forever beyond their reach soon if they don't do something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:I might just be optimistic, but I'm feeling like Hillary's going to get two terms. I mean, the Republicans might learn their lesson here, but you'd have thought they'd do that in 2012, and instead we got Trump. Their big positions like opposition to gay marriage, drugs, trans people's existence, and abortion are only going to get more unpopular in the meantime, too, particularly with fuckups like McCrory doing their thing and screwing over their states. If they don't ditch the albatross of social conservatism they shouldn't be able to recover any time soon, and with things like Mylan and insulin providers killing people for profit economic conservatism isn't doing too hot either. They need to reform or at least realign, and with the religious right and other social conservatives making up a sizable portion of their base that might not be possible. Also, four years of Hillary, coming after her saving the country from having to exist under Donald Trump, will hopefully show people that she's not that bad, at least compared to the alternative. I think Hillary will absolutely get two terms. The GOP's bench is completely decimated, all their candidates are toxic to the general public, and the electoral map just gets worse for them with every cycle. Hillary's approval numbers always rise once she gets elected to a new position and people realize that she isn't a super-corrupt monster and the world didn't end. Getting elected the first time is her biggest hurdle and it looks like she's clearing it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 10:34
|
|
|
I think trying to project farther than about six months in politics is basically pointless and speculating on whether or not Hillary could win a second term when she still has to win the first one. To use a trite analogy, let's go back and time and ask people in March of 2001 what they think of the possibility of a massive scale multi-location terrorist attack on US soil using airplanes as weapons, that kill thousands of people. Usually it's not that extreme, but hey, only five years ago we were having the Arab Spring and the original debt ceiling crisis. A lot can change in politics very quickly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 10:34
|
|
|
If the majority of state governments are still held by republicans when the next census is taken, I bet we're going to see some very creative district maps.Lightning Knight posted:To use a trite analogy, let's go back and time and ask people in March of 2001 what they think of the possibility of a massive scale multi-location terrorist attack on US soil using airplanes as weapons, that kill thousands of people. I remember thinking it sounded familiar when it happened. Concordat fucked around with this message at 10:39 on Oct 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 10:36
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I think trying to project farther than about six months in politics is basically pointless and speculating on whether or not Hillary could win a second term when she still has to win the first one. To use a trite analogy, let's go back and time and ask people in March of 2001 what they think of the possibility of a massive scale multi-location terrorist attack on US soil using airplanes as weapons, that kill thousands of people. Usually it's not that extreme, but hey, only five years ago we were having the Arab Spring and the original debt ceiling crisis. A lot can change in politics very quickly. True, but I don't think that the GOP have enough nouse to be able to capitalise on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
I think they'll try to stop Cruz from taking the crown, but that the same idiots will be in charge and they'll be too cowardly and idiotic to stop him Cruz is only slightly more electable than Trump
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 10:43
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Oh, right, that too. Demographics are loving them harder and harder. I'd argue that it's already too late to do something. By painting themselves into a corner as the party for white supremacy, they've effectively allowed the Dems to define themselves as the party for "everyone else", including whites that don't think racism is cool. By making open racists like Trump the face of their party, they've lost an entire generation of voters, most of which view themselves as Dems by default due to racial identity. I think the GOP can regain voters again by dropping the racial angle and focusing on suckering people in with libertarian bullshit, but it would be a drastic, painful realignment that would temporarily result in Dem dominance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
Antti posted:Unfortunately Clinton's campaign itself has given a hand to the GOP in uncoupling itself from Trump and the media and the voters are too enthralled by the unravelling disaster to remember that one of the major parties in the country has committed massive electoral and moral malpractice by nominating an unprepared and unfit person. This is the part I want to see emphasized as much as possible through November and maybe even 2018 midterms at that. The GOP members themselves have been dodging all the Trump questions by pretending they don't watch debates, use phones, read newspapers, or tweet online and then run away as fast as they can. There should be a breaking point where this cowardice should be called out as journalists get annoyed by how the hoops they have to jump through in order to get their precious access is not worth the nothingburgers they're getting from these guys, but since probing the issue in any meaningful way would threaten the "both sides are equally valid/serious/responsible/terrible" myth, there is very little chance of a reckoning happening.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:I'd argue that it's already too late to do something. By painting themselves into a corner as the party for white supremacy, they've effectively allowed the Dems to define themselves as the party for "everyone else", including whites that don't think racism is cool. By making open racists like Trump the face of their party, they've lost an entire generation of voters, most of which view themselves as Dems by default due to racial identity. I think the GOP can regain voters again by dropping the racial angle and focusing on suckering people in with libertarian bullshit, but it would be a drastic, painful realignment that would temporarily result in Dem dominance. on the one hand, the gop should have rebranded towards liberal multicultural christianity in 2009 on the other hand, the tea party popped up and put basically every republican on an ideological watch list
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 10:53
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:I think the GOP can regain voters again by dropping the racial angle and focusing on suckering people in with libertarian bullshit, but it would be a drastic, painful realignment that would temporarily result in Dem dominance. It would also shatter the coalition between religion-motivated voters and economics-motivated voters. The GOP would be straight-up annihilated at the national level if white evangelicals stayed home on Election Day. Giving up the culture war is not a winning strategy, as it's provided the incentive for a ton of single-issue voters over the last decade or more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 10:53
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:Hillary's approval numbers always rise once she gets elected to a new position and people realize that she isn't a super-corrupt monster and the world didn't end. The important thing for her is to get Supreme Court justices and other federal judges on the bench. And that will require a Senate majority. I think if the Republicans keep the Senate this year, Hillary can be kept to a one term presidency, and absolutely nothing of value beyond vetoing Congress's lovely bills will happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 11:07
|
|
|
Concordat posted:If the majority of state governments are still held by republicans when the next census is taken, I bet we're going to see some very creative district maps. Lmao what the gently caress. I might need a new reference point for "unimaginable political event nobody saw coming" then. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 11:09
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:It would also shatter the coalition between religion-motivated voters and economics-motivated voters. The GOP would be straight-up annihilated at the national level if white evangelicals stayed home on Election Day. Giving up the culture war is not a winning strategy, as it's provided the incentive for a ton of single-issue voters over the last decade or more. If or when they give up the culture war stuff, I am sure they will find a decent supply of ill-informed libertarians. That entire ideology is incredibly appealing to a lot of people because they don't put in the effort to research it more than five minutes. It is much harder to explain to voters why you should keep taxes than just say "Get government out of your money!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 11:14
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:The important thing for her is to get Supreme Court justices and other federal judges on the bench. And that will require a Senate majority. I think if the Republicans keep the Senate this year, Hillary can be kept to a one term presidency, and absolutely nothing of value beyond vetoing Congress's lovely bills will happen. That is looking increasingly unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 11:14
|
|
|
Nichael posted:If or when they give up the culture war stuff, I am sure they will find a decent supply of ill-informed libertarians. That entire ideology is incredibly appealing to a lot of people because they don't put in the effort to research it more than five minutes. It is much harder to explain to voters why you should keep taxes than just say "Get government out of your money!" Libertarianism doesn't do well when it gets exposed to any kind of mass scrutiny. It's an ideology built on a house of cards and predicated on the assumption that you're too privileged or stupid to care. That is the fundamental problem for conservatives. You can pay lip service to fiscal conservatism and libertarianism all you like but people don't actually want that poo poo en masse. What they want, in the end, is welfare for whites and upholding the status quo against women, LGBT people, and ethnic minorities. There's just not a whole lot of places for the Republican Party to go. Theyre kind of stuck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 11:19
|
|
|
I really don't understand the optimism on Hilldawg's chances at another term - there's still a lot that can happen in four years, but most importantly, not much will happen at the federal level beyond the appointment of Scalia (and probably RBG's) replacements. Unless Hillary shocks everyone and turns Trump's defeat into a chance to work with the Republican congress on a number of major issues that they generally oppose (healthcare, criminal justice, environment, taxes, etc), then it's going to be four years of doing nothing. Remember that voters are morons. While the Republicans do not have demographics on their side, running a not-literally insane person like Trump can easily attract a good number of women voters and possibly even hispanic voters if the economy takes a turn for the worse or some other international crisis occurs. There WILL be another recession, and the Democrats will be blamed for it if they are in the White House, because voters are dumb and will ask "Why didn't the Dems do anything, they've been in charge for 12 years!" Memories of Trump's racisms might help keep hispanics behind the Dems, but the lack of Trump will likely just exacerbate the enthusiasm gap of young voters and hispanics who suddenly don't have a boogeyman around to scare them into supporting the Dem, causing them to just say "meh" and stay home. 2018 will be a preview of this. Voters have the memory of goldfish, undecided voters are morons, and lol nothing matters. This election should be a testament to this more than anything! That said, the Republicans may totally nominate Cruz and suicide, but I'm arguing that it's not a given. 2020 will end up being a far more consequential election in the long run (avoiding fascism aside), as it will decide whether the house is finally back in play for the entire decade from 2022-2032.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 11:31
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Libertarianism doesn't do well when it gets exposed to any kind of mass scrutiny. It's an ideology built on a house of cards and predicated on the assumption that you're too privileged or stupid to care. Yeah, even the standard old, anti-"communism" Republican voter would be livid if you so much as touched their Medicare. Heck, my grandmother, despite being profoundly anti-Hillary and being solidly Republican in a lot of ways (kind of racist, hates gay people, etc.), is horrified by things like the medicine price-gouging and was not only already of the opinion that the government needs to stop that sort of thing, but a surprisingly easy sell on the idea that the way European nations handle healthcare and medical price control is worth consideration. It's probably in large part because she's not entirely FYGM and, requiring insulin herself and having a diabetic grandchild (not me), can sympathize quite a bit here, but still. As long as you can show them how it benefits them and don't call it socialism (or at least don't until after you've convinced them), Republicans can be pretty open to it in a lot of ways. I'm really, really curious what's going to happen to the Republican part going forward. Do they just accept that they Presidency is almost guaranteed to be out of reach and focus on solidifying their hold elsewhere? Rage and further alienate people every four years? Try to actually change/become something else even though it'll probably significantly weaken them in the short term? Nothing seems like it should appeal to them, though I imagine that most who are currently in power will be selfish and try to keep what they have as long as possible, even if it dooms the future of the party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 11:32
|
|
|
What bullshit. Are they still trying to decide between Hillary and Johnson or what?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 11:38
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:It's probably in large part because she's not entirely FYGM and, requiring insulin herself and having a diabetic grandchild (not me), can sympathize quite a bit here, but still. As long as you can show them how it benefits them and don't call it socialism (or at least don't until after you've convinced them), Republicans can be pretty open to it in a lot of ways. Supporting liberal policies because they benefit you personally is still FYGM.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 11:38
|
|
|
And the GOP will have to deal with everyone knowing that outright racist red meat rhetoric gets primary votes. There will be a lot more Trump-like and Herman Cain-like candidacies I think. The math of needing the far right fringe in the primary won't go away for awhile. I have my heart set on a solid blue House and a major push for Democrats voting in midterms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 11:38
|
|
|
JosefStalinator posted:I really don't understand the optimism on Hilldawg's chances at another term - there's still a lot that can happen in four years, but most importantly, not much will happen at the federal level beyond the appointment of Scalia (and probably RBG's) replacements. Unless Hillary shocks everyone and turns Trump's defeat into a chance to work with the Republican congress on a number of major issues that they generally oppose (healthcare, criminal justice, environment, taxes, etc), then it's going to be four years of doing nothing. I really hate saying it, but I'm way more inclined to agree with this pessimistic outlook than any of the "GOP's hosed" outlooks. It ultimately hinges on the fact that voters truly are morons, and 2016 has confirmed that completely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 11:52
|
|
|
I doubt hillary will get a second term, because the eurozone is pretty much about to collapse and cause another recession.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
I mean, we basically have two main long-term problems. The most immediate one is that we're basically guaranteed a recession soon. That doesn't necessarily mean it will be a big gently caress off one like 2008 that destroys Hillary's presidency but it's not helpful and voters are too stupid to make any other conclusion than "Democrat is president, ergo recession is Democrat's fault." The more long-term one is that climate change is still going to bend the world over a rail and nobody is doing nearly enough about it. Usually I don't like moral weight arguments, about whether or not this or that issue of the Left is more important, but climate change has basically reached the point where it actually does matter more than everything else and we kind of need to fix it now. I don't know how we accomplish that when most of the country doesn't even believe it's a problem, but...
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 11:56
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, we basically have two main long-term problems. The most immediate one is that we're basically guaranteed a recession soon. That doesn't necessarily mean it will be a big gently caress off one like 2008 that destroys Hillary's presidency but it's not helpful and voters are too stupid to make any other conclusion than "Democrat is president, ergo recession is Democrat's fault." The worst part about the latter is that Clinton really won't even be able to do a ton about it as long as the Republicans have anywhere near as much power as they have now. And when the problems of climate change become even more visible to average people, they will undoubtedly blame the president. It's a major political, economic, and continuing to actually survive problem, and I have no idea what the gently caress to do about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 12:00
|
|
|
At least Trump losing will give us some hope that global warming won't become guaranteed apocalypse-level bad, considering the stupid fucker doesn't believe in it, and wants us to start mining and burning shitloads of coal again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 12:05
|
|
|
Queering Wheel posted:At least Trump losing will give us some hope that global warming won't become guaranteed apocalypse-level bad, considering the stupid fucker doesn't believe in it, and wants us to start mining and burning shitloads of coal again. Unhappily for this outlook, there are lots of other countries in the world that are still reliant on fossil fuels for energy production. Even if the US takes the lead and makes a massive shift towards baseline nuclear and green support, it's still a lot to ask of developing nations that they give up easy, cheap energy that they may already have within their borders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Unhappily for this outlook, there are lots of other countries in the world that are still reliant on fossil fuels for energy production. Even if the US takes the lead and makes a massive shift towards baseline nuclear and green support, it's still a lot to ask of developing nations that they give up easy, cheap energy that they may already have within their borders. That's a whole other nest of vipers, but if the major companies still have their offices in the USA there can be more pressure applied to CEO's. A gigantic "IN THEORY" sign needs to be lit up every time I post about things though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
Don't forget that Russia is encouraging ignorance on climate change by adopting conservative rhetoric/conspiracy theories, and serving as a second source of climate skepticism!
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Unhappily for this outlook, there are lots of other countries in the world that are still reliant on fossil fuels for energy production. Even if the US takes the lead and makes a massive shift towards baseline nuclear and green support, it's still a lot to ask of developing nations that they give up easy, cheap energy that they may already have within their borders. Assuming for a moment we could even win the political battle to force the US to abandon fossil fuels for renewable energy, ensuring everyone else falls in line for the sake of a future for the planet isn't necessarily out of reach for the United States and justifiable under the notion that most developing nations will suffer much worse than us if we just let climate change get out of hand. I would rather not have to disperse renewable energy policy at gunpoint to the Third World, but we massively dropped the ball on fixing climate change when it was a small problem and now we're trying to put out a chemical spill with water while dipshits ask in the background if there's really a fire at all and if there is, was it us that dropped the match and are you sure it's gonna burn our house down? JosefStalinator posted:Don't forget that Russia is encouraging ignorance on climate change by adopting conservative rhetoric/conspiracy theories, and serving as a second source of climate skepticism! gently caress the Russians. Putin is such a shithead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 12:49
|
|
|
It would be interesting to see someone try to push for US-built, locally-maintained nuclear plants around the world. Replace the government subsidized military industrial complex with a government subsidized energy industrial complex. I'm pretty sure nuclear is cheaper per kWh than fossils, but I would love to hear someone more knowledgeable than me explain why this is a terrible idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
Antti posted:Sup fellow poli sci degree haver. Been a rough year, huh? More like a rough five years. Thankfully things are looking up. Now that the recession is over (for now) it's easier to dig myself out of my hole.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/guardianworld/status/782176125766152192vorebane posted:And the GOP will have to deal with everyone knowing that outright racist red meat rhetoric gets primary votes. There will be a lot more Trump-like and Herman Cain-like candidacies I think. The math of needing the far right fringe in the primary won't go away for awhile. I fully expect the 2020 GOP field to contain a handful of hucksters and those looking to sell their books/Fox News appearance just like this year. You're right though, dog-whistling simply isn't enough anymore, especially if you have another blatant Trump-like figure who's willing to dig in the poo poo for votes. I do wonder if Cruz still has a chance - he seemed to prop himself up as the True Conservative You Guys 2020 candidate before he endorsed Trump, but that endorsement may come back to bite him hard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/guardianworld/status/782176125766152192 E:FB
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
Farage is a moron that people outside of England somehow think is an intelligent and effective politician because of brexit and his accent
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
Oh wow. Seriously? Because I am really hopeful this stops the fuckwits at work who talk about Nigel as "A decent bloke" get hosed right in the ear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
Oh so Trump will show up to the debate with more racism somehow and also a lovely mustache
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 08:58 |
|
|
Ahahaha literally Nigel Farage holy poo poo. They deserve each other.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 13:00
|
|