EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3255
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On June 25 2021 19:38 Belisarius wrote: Sure, but your electoral system is specifically designed to undercount the preferences of the places where most of the people are. That's the whole basis of the structural advantages the Republicans have voted themselves over time. I don't have an opinion on DeSantis's threat level, but Nevuk's point is that it's unimpressive to have barely won a state which otherwise produced an almost solid-red electoral map. That point is fairly sound. I don't know what to tell you, man. The last 3 governor elections were all decided by 1% point. The state went for Obama before it went for Trump. The difference between Gore and Bush's vote count in 2000 in a state with over 20 million people was just several hundred votes. There are MORE registered Democrats than Republicans in the state. Everything suggests it is a state that is split evenly down the middle but if you want to just declare it to be a red state I can't stop you. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
NrG.Bamboo
United States2756 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On June 25 2021 06:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Have you heard that Tucker Carlson might run for president? I haven't, but if he does, I'd be worried. I've not heard that he is, but there have been some really dumb articles floating his name and he appears on a couple polls. He's also the highest non Trump on betting odds sites for being the gop nominee. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46281 Posts
On June 26 2021 06:18 Nevuk wrote: I've not heard that he is, but there have been some really dumb articles floating his name and he appears on a couple polls. He's also the highest non Trump on betting odds sites for being the gop nominee. Gotcha, thanks. I don't know if Carlson is interested in leaving his comfortable position as one of the faces of Fox News for the turmoil of a presidential run; I hope not. I also don't know how likely it'll be for a traditional, milquetoast, conservative, establishment politician (like a Romney or McCain) to gain traction and win a Republican presidential primary; I feel like the next few Republican primaries will be all about who can channel their inner Trump the loudest and most arrogantly, regardless of their political platforms or ethical values. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On June 26 2021 05:53 JimmiC wrote: I think the whether or not Florida is red blue or purple does not really matter for the Reps when picking their next guy. Whether Florida is Blue/Red/Purple is the only thing that matters in the discussion of DeSantis being non-threatening because he barely won a "red" state. But in general I think DeSantis has a decent shot. Biden will be too old, Kamala is unlikable, and the economy will still be shit from COVID. There is a good chance the presidency swings back to the R's and I think DeSantis will be the candidate because he can channel Trump but he's less of a buffoon. I said on another Liquid site that if I knew a reputable site to gamble and I could get odds of 12-1 or better I would drop a couple G's on DeSantis | ||
|
Husyelt
United States839 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24261 Posts
Trump is still by far the leading candidate for the Republican nomination should he choose to run though. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On June 27 2021 07:22 Zambrah wrote: Being wildly popular with your party is important though, if you’re wildly popular people will turn out to vote, if people don’t like you they won’t be bothered to vote for you. Yes voter turnout is very low in the United States. Something like 50%. So there are as many non-voters as there are Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters combined. Being able to excite your base is not worthless. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dromar
United States2145 Posts
On June 27 2021 08:11 GreenHorizons wrote: DeSantis is the front runner if Trump decides not to run. As to his chances in a general, I think the big issue is whether there's any chance for Biden/Democrats to get the ~half of their votes that were "against Trump" rather than "for Biden" to vote "against DeSantis". Trump is still by far the leading candidate for the Republican nomination should he choose to run though. I fully expect dems to play something along the lines of "Make no mistake, the Republican party is still the party of Trump!!" Can't they use Trump as a boogeyman for the foreseeable future? | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On June 27 2021 09:07 JimmiC wrote: I didn't say it was, I said he does it less then Trump but has the same lack of appeal with the others. If someone wanted to show how he excited the reps more than Trump then it would matter. But Trump lost so less won't help. We're all just conjecturing at this point. I imagine Trump is a little more exciting for the base while DeSantis is a little less distasteful to independents. But my prediction for DeSantis is irregardless of either of these things. As James Carville says, "it's the economy, stupid." If we have a sluggish COVID recovery, inflation, a tech bubble burst, people losing their homes as eviction moratoriums end, etc then it's not going to matter if DeSantis is a little less appealing to the base. Trump probably would have won again if he had the pre-covid economy going into the election. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46281 Posts
On June 27 2021 09:14 Dromar wrote: I fully expect dems to play something along the lines of "Make no mistake, the Republican party is still the party of Trump!!" Can't they use Trump as a boogeyman for the foreseeable future? Even though Democrats actually run on legitimate platforms and discuss substantive topics, they get raked over the coals incredibly hard any time they occasionally use the "Vote for me because the Republicans are bad" statement, because a lot of voters on the left don't find the "lesser of two evils" argument as attractive as Republicans do. The Republican identity has literally become about how hard their candidate wants to stick it to the Dems, and that seems to work well to rally those constituents. It doesn't work as well with the Dems though; they want progress, not just dodging Trump. Dems want to take steps forwards, not just avoiding taking steps backwards. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
| ||
|
Slydie
1998 Posts
On June 27 2021 09:14 Dromar wrote: I fully expect dems to play something along the lines of "Make no mistake, the Republican party is still the party of Trump!!" Can't they use Trump as a boogeyman for the foreseeable future? Skipping on this opportunity would be incredibly stupid, and they won't. It is the calculated risk the GOP is taking by staying at Tump's side, but they have now dug themselves so deep there is no easy way out. Most progressives DID vote for Biden, and he seems very conscious about throwing enough bones leftwards to keep them on his side. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18412 Posts
On June 27 2021 09:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Even though Democrats actually run on legitimate platforms and discuss substantive topics, they get raked over the coals incredibly hard any time they occasionally use the "Vote for me because the Republicans are bad" statement, because a lot of voters on the left don't find the "lesser of two evils" argument as attractive as Republicans do. The Republican identity has literally become about how hard their candidate wants to stick it to the Dems, and that seems to work well to rally those constituents. It doesn't work as well with the Dems though; they want progress, not just dodging Trump. Dems want to take steps forwards, not just avoiding taking steps backwards. That's because conservatives are by their very nature happy with things not changing. 4 years of completely disfuncional government is, to most of them, just peachy. Progressives are by their very nature unhappy with 4 years of stasis. Therefore 4 years of Biden stasis is only very marginally better than 4 years of Trump stasis (and only because Trump wasn't actually stasis, but rather an active sabotage of what the government is supposed to be doing). A milquetoast republican who will keep government running and not do much else (except maybe stop funding abortion clinics or forbid gays from being in the military) is only very marginally worse than a milquetoast democrat (unless you want an abortion in Tennessee or are gay and in the military, of which there simply aren't enough to carry the vote). So someone promising they will stick it to the libs and do nothing else is an ideal candidate for many conservatives. Meanwhile someone who "is not Trump" but has no plans to do anything is a *terrible* candidate for most progressives. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8170 Posts
In many ways, the most revolutionary folks are the extreme conservatives. If modern conservatism had a motto, it would be Lampedusa's famous "For things to stay the same, everything has to change". What they want to maintain are certain social hierarchies; if that means completely transforming society, they are more than happy to do it. As an extreme example, folks preaching transforming the US into an ethnostate are much more radical in the change they preach than any lefty out there, but they do it in order to maintain (or going back to) a certain racial order and hierarchy (hence the conservatism). There is no reason to think that they are happy with a status quo. I think anyway, that everytime you hear about "people wanting the status quo", it's a strawman. Nobody wants the status quo. You might want certain things to be preserved because you think they actually have value, and you might not believe that changing everything overnight is feasible, realistic or smart, but no one is just interested in the country staying the way it is. Not the conservatives, nor the centrists, nor the liberal, nor the progressives. | ||
| ||
