2020 Presidential Election -- Biden v Trump: Sleepy Joe vs Dopey Don [Results begin on page 409]

[Ghost of LL 15664]

24 minutes ago, The Dog said:

I don't get this take at all. If Trump loses he's done. He's not going to pull a Grover Cleveland.

By the way, part of my assessment is due to things like this:

13 hours ago, LABEVO said:

 

The move of the Never Trumper over the past four years has been fascinating to watch.  And I think it is going to be hugely impactful for years to come.

The Never Trumpers in 2016 were just that--"never Trumpers."  But they were still Republicans.  They voted for Republicans all up and down the ballot from Senator down to county clerk.  But over the past four years, they've been disgusted as Republicans from Senator down to county clerk have not just acquiesced to Trump's abuses, but facilitated and supported them.  They probably split their ballots during the midterms, voting for the Republicans who they thought were sufficiently independent. 

But now, post-impeachment and in the midst of the pandemic and unrest, they're reliable members of the Democratic Party (much to @bad_teammate's chagrin).

The Never Trumpers are a reasonably small number.  Probably no more than about 10% of the pre-Trump Republican Party.  But it's an important 10%.  It is highly educated, wealthy, and influential.

That has real effects on both parties.  For the Republican Party, with no Never Trumpers, it is only Trumpkins left.  The Trumpublican Party has purged all of its non-Trump elements.  And it's impossible to see how anybody could oppose Trump in a primary and win.  There's just no constituency in the Trumpublican Party for that.

For the Democratic Party, it means a lot more money and a lot more talent available to its candidates.  The Never Trumpers have come over and now have the zeal of converts.  They're never voting for another Republican candidate ever again.  It may mean that the Democratic Party shifts somewhat to the center, but I've frankly seen no evidence of that.  I think it actually gives the Democratic Party a lot of latitude to move left, safe in the knowledge that it's the majority party against a minority party that is completely noxious.

 

[bad_teammate 13479]

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

But now, post-impeachment and in the midst of the pandemic and unrest, they're reliable members of the Democratic Party (much to @bad_teammate's chagrin).

Do you genuinely believe they'd be "reliable members of the Democratic Party" when Trump is gone and Josh Hawleys are running on the Republican side?

[Voldemort86 2259]

2 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Rubio is probably the best decision the GOP could make. 

Smart, handsome, minority, probably palatable to the SoCons.  He’s a wee little fella so if you think that height matters in a leader on a subconscious level that hurts. He’s not converting anyone on here likely, but I’m guessing nobody would be embarrassed about a Rubio presidency like they are with Trump

the GOP can and will do worse. Guaranteed. 

I know the vast majority of Americans have short memories and don’t remember the petty details, but are you saying the same Marco Rubio who got totally pantsed by trump in the GOP primary by Trump, said repeatedly during debates that he wouldn’t go back to his senate seat, then came crawling back to his senate seat after only the people of Minnesota thought he would be a good president?

i’m very skeptical that this man or jebra bush could successfully navigate the GOP primary. You have to have some nastiness to make it through that shit show. Those guys don’t really have it in them.

[Chuckie Finster 22978]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Do you genuinely believe they'd be "reliable members of the Democratic Party" when Trump is gone and Josh Hawleys are running on the Republican side?

I can only speak for myself, but I think I reasonably fit Ghost's description and I can safely say fuck Josh Hawley.

[DigglerontheHoof 21516]

1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

Trump will be in prison or dead in 2024. 

[bad_teammate 13479]

28 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I can only speak for myself, but I think I reasonably fit Ghost's description and I can safely say fuck Josh Hawley.

Ok, well substitute some other Republican strain that you find attractive.

[henrygandorf 29219]

55 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

By the way, part of my assessment is due to things like this:

The move of the Never Trumper over the past four years has been fascinating to watch.  And I think it is going to be hugely impactful for years to come.

The Never Trumpers in 2016 were just that--"never Trumpers."  But they were still Republicans.  They voted for Republicans all up and down the ballot from Senator down to county clerk.  But over the past four years, they've been disgusted as Republicans from Senator down to county clerk have not just acquiesced to Trump's abuses, but facilitated and supported them.  They probably split their ballots during the midterms, voting for the Republicans who they thought were sufficiently independent. 

But now, post-impeachment and in the midst of the pandemic and unrest, they're reliable members of the Democratic Party (much to @bad_teammate's chagrin).

The Never Trumpers are a reasonably small number.  Probably no more than about 10% of the pre-Trump Republican Party.  But it's an important 10%.  It is highly educated, wealthy, and influential.

That has real effects on both parties.  For the Republican Party, with no Never Trumpers, it is only Trumpkins left.  The Trumpublican Party has purged all of its non-Trump elements.  And it's impossible to see how anybody could oppose Trump in a primary and win.  There's just no constituency in the Trumpublican Party for that.

For the Democratic Party, it means a lot more money and a lot more talent available to its candidates.  The Never Trumpers have come over and now have the zeal of converts.  They're never voting for another Republican candidate ever again.  It may mean that the Democratic Party shifts somewhat to the center, but I've frankly seen no evidence of that.  I think it actually gives the Democratic Party a lot of latitude to move left, safe in the knowledge that it's the majority party against a minority party that is completely noxious.

 

there would have to be a concerted effort by someone untarnished by trump's orange fingers to come out and win those people back.  it would almost literally have to be somebody who's on nobody's radar now, and who will emerge as a player around 2026, and become a contender in 2028.  the biden + vp? would also have to have a messy 4-8 years.

a lot of things had to happen for trump to win (including the perfect dem opponent).  a lot of things will have to happen for the gop to make a substantial comeback meaningful enough to grab these people, and it will have to be a new guard taking over.

any decent effort by trump, trump offspring, or trump-connected people in 2024 will slow this effort.  i don't see the never-trumpers switching back over someone even tangentially connected to that train wreck.

[Ghost of LL 15664]

56 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Do you genuinely believe they'd be "reliable members of the Democratic Party" when Trump is gone and Josh Hawleys are running on the Republican side?

Yeah.  I do.  Because I think you really underestimate the power of negative partisanship.

The Never Trumpers are going to be every bit as Democratic as the South was post-Reconstruction.  And, I mean, it's really not going to matter what the Democratic Party does or stands for.  The Democrats ran an anti-prohibition Catholic in 1928; the South voted for him.  Roosevelt championed the New Deal, which was antithetical to the conservative South.  Did they quit being Democrats?  Fuck no--because negative partisanship is stronger than ideology or personality.

I don't fucking care who the Republicans run.  I don't care who the Democrats run.  The Never Trumpers are never going back.  They are going to be as Democratic as African Americans for a generation.

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

What's the scenario in which he doesn't get the nomination in 2024?  That he doesn't run?  Why would you possibly believe that?

The scenario is that he pardons himself before leaving office so he can’t be prosecuted for his obstruction of justice or campaign related felonies. You can’t run for office again after doing that. His plan will be to turn OAN into TrumpTV and he can air his grievances on a 24 hr “news” network 

[Chuckie Finster 22978]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Ok, well substitute some other Republican strain that you find attractive.

That's kind of the thing, there is none.  There might have been a time where a clean-cut, inoffensive guy like Hawley could have won me back, but it has long passed.  I obviously cannot predict the future, but the disdain I currently feel for every single person with a (R) next to their name is not something I envision going away for a long, long time.

 

[Hiphopopotamos 21158]

3 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

The scenario is that he pardons himself before leaving office so he can’t be prosecuted for his obstruction of justice or campaign related felonies. You can’t run for office again after doing that. His plan will be to turn OAN into TrumpTV and he can air his grievances on a 24 hr “news” network 

He can't pardon himself for state crimes and NY is coming after his orange ass.

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

Just now, Hiphopopotamos said:

He can't pardon himself for state crimes and NY is coming after his orange ass.

God willing 

[bad_teammate 13479]

17 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

That's kind of the thing, there is none.  There might have been a time where a clean-cut, inoffensive guy like Hawley could have won me back, but it has long passed.  I obviously cannot predict the future, but the disdain I currently feel for every single person with a (R) next to their name is not something I envision going away for a long, long time.

But what has structurally, fundamentally changed in your politics? What, specifically, drove you away?

The disorganized passion of it reminds me of couples who break up and get back together all the time.

Class will tell.

 

[The Dog 44771]

49 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

 

I don't fucking care who the Republicans run.  I don't care who the Democrats run.  The Never Trumpers are never going back.  They are going to be as Democratic as African Americans for a generation.

I don't think the typical "Never Trump" voter who has been Republican for a long time is going to be a reliable Democratic voter. These people are generally conservative and the Democrats are moving left as fast as the Republicans have tacked to the right. 

Let me ask you this - if Trump were to decide he didn't want to lose an election and step aside, and Pence became the nominee instead, how do you think most Republican "Never Trumpers" would vote?

Edited to add - I think you are assuming that these will be the same for the Democrats as the "Reagan Democrats" were to the Republicans, but those people now make up the Republican base. If the same were to occur to the Democrats then the future Democratic party will look at lot different than it does today, and conversely the Republican party as well. I don't think the current establishment Democratic leadership will allow that to happen. 

Edited June 3, 2020 by The Dog

[Chuckie Finster 22978]

28 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

But what has structurally, fundamentally changed in your politics? What, specifically, drove you away?

The disorganized passion of it reminds me of couples who break up and get back together all the time.

Class will tell.

 

In all honesty, I was fairly apolitical before 2015 or so.  I grew up in a Conservative environment, surrounded by Conservative people.  I very much fell into the "both sides suck, so I'll just vote what I know" camp.  In 2016 I was disgusted by Trump, but still was pulling for someone like Kasich to somehow pull through.  But since then, my eyes have been opened to a lot of stuff that has probably been evident to you for a while.  It's amazing what happens when you actually start looking into issues yourself rather than just listening to talking points regurgitated from those around you.  I'm sure I'm still not as liberal as you would prefer, but I can assure you this isn't just a Trump phase (although I still feel strongly that he is problem #1 that needs to be dealt with.)

Your couples analogy isn't a bad one, but I think my case is more of a "married someone at 18 years old before I knew who I was" kind of thing.  Those usually don't reconcile.

Edited June 3, 2020 by Chuckie Finster

[Pancho 46054]

 

[Guest Lobo]

A statistical tie in Texas?  Wow.  Way to go Trump!  Is there anything you can't fuck up this week? 

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

3 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

I love this, but I will believe it when I see it 

[tantric superman 4668]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

Yeah.  I do.  Because I think you really underestimate the power of negative partisanship.

The Never Trumpers are going to be every bit as Democratic as the South was post-Reconstruction.  And, I mean, it's really not going to matter what the Democratic Party does or stands for.  The Democrats ran an anti-prohibition Catholic in 1928; the South voted for him.  Roosevelt championed the New Deal, which was antithetical to the conservative South.  Did they quit being Democrats?  Fuck no--because negative partisanship is stronger than ideology or personality.

I don't fucking care who the Republicans run.  I don't care who the Democrats run.  The Never Trumpers are never going back.  They are going to be as Democratic as African Americans for a generation.

Yep.  I am already anticipating conversations with the one or two right of center people who I still respect where they tell me "well voting for that Democrat is not really in your best interest".

And my response will be "I don't really understand your point."

 

[Bruh Man 3160]

 

[The Dog 44771]

3 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I love this, but I will believe it when I see it 

 Yeah looking at the numbers I think the sample is borked. it appears to have too many college educated voters in the sample - only 27% of Texans even have a college degree. I don't know how they came up with Trump +1 when he gets 2/3rds of the vote from the non-college educated whites crowd.

[Wulaw Horn 19560]

3 hours ago, gmr548 said:

 

 

Rubio has completely, unambiguously bent over for Trump. Anyone who is up in arms over Trump but turns around and votes for him should be embarrassed that the only thing they're really against in the Trump admin is the presentation. I'd certainly be embarrassed if a America elected a Trump lackey and sent that message.

Note that is not me saying it wouldn't happen in large numbers.

 

Sure. So has the entire party (at least all of the elected party that hold office).  Is Sassee going to run?  He'd be first on my list if for no other reason then he didn't seem to capitulate like everyone else.

I'd love Scott Walker. He was my guy in 2016 and he dropped out and said everyone else should clear the field so the anti Trump vote could coalesce and stop him (like the Dems did with Bernie in 2020).  Paul Ryan? He clearly loathed Trump and then quit, and he's certainly not somebody anyone could accuse of being dumb.  

I'm not looking for candidates here that yall would love- b/c there isn't a GOP person that fits that bill. Rubio, to me, hasn't been as obnoxious in his capitulation as Cruz, so he'd be higher up my list.

As far as what you are saying- yeah- lots of stuff Trump has done everyone (in the GOP that matters) is in favor of.  Judicial appointments.  Tax Cuts.  Border enforcement.  Being suspicious of China.  It's not like the guy is wrong all the time. From my perspective as a conservative I don't have any real super huge policy bone to pick with him.  It is like he's an asshole all the time, it is like he's embarrassing all the time, and it is like he picks the most convoluted, stupid and embarrassing argument to be made. 

I read W's statement and missed him all over again last nigh, comparing and contrasting to Trump.  But, W did part D medicare, let Ted Kennedy write no child left behind, and got us entangled in 2 foreign wars that lasted a long time.  Trump has nothing like this to irritate a conservative, so yeah, in a lot of ways it's presentation, not policy.  And I really don't think the average person that's disgusted by Trump is up in arms all that much about policy.  I'm not saying they agree with him on all, but most of the sides of an issue he takes are the most popular sides with the most Americans.  

Look, I really don't follow this shit all that much. I like to talk stuff like this (big broad national trends over time, tactics in an upcoming election, predictions, gambling/gloating/taking my medicine after an election) but I'm not paying attention to the inner workings of DC. I'm out on the idea that government will do anything positive to help me and mine (exception- Corona relief- which was awesome, smart, and bi-partisan- kudos to Washington) and I view it as something that needs to be overcome in my enjoyment of my own personal freedoms and liberties. I've got 3 little kids, and am running 2 businesses, and the more attention I pay to the shit the shittier job I do with my real responsibilities and stuff that's inside of my control.

I've enjoyed conversing with you about this stuff- it's interesting thing to do while having a drink on the back porch while the family is down, or while I'm looking for a mental break at the office.

Now I get to go try to help 5 people with really shitty credit get on a path to homeownership so they can participate in the American dream. I'd be shocked if even 1 of them was a homeowner by the end of next year, but I grind away on giving everyone that can't qualify a detailed, step by step plan to become a homeowner someday.  Knowledge.  It probably won't ever happen, if it does it probably isn't worth my time invested from a money perspective, but I fucking love the 4-6 deals a year where the person gives me a hug, cries at closing, and tells me thank you so much, I didn't believe I'd ever do it and  wouldn't have without you. And I know that's true.  It's my version of pro bono and trying to make my corner of the world a better place.  

[Ghost of LL 15664]

29 minutes ago, The Dog said:

I don't think the typical "Never Trump" voter who has been Republican for a long time is going to be a reliable Democratic voter. These people are generally conservative and the Democrats are moving left as fast as the Republicans have tacked to the right. 

Let me ask you this - if Trump were to decide he didn't want to lose an election and step aside, and Pence became the nominee instead, how do you think most Republican "Never Trumpers" would vote?

Edited to add - I think you are assuming that these will be the same for the Democrats as the "Reagan Democrats" were to the Republicans, but those people now make up the Republican base. If the same were to occur to the Democrats then the future Democratic party will look at lot different than it does today, and conversely the Republican party as well. I don't think the current establishment Democratic leadership will allow that to happen. 

The scenario in which Trump decides to step aside is a scenario in which Trump isn't Trump.  He won't do that, because he's a narcissist who doesn't believe he could possibly lose.  And Trump being Trump is precisely why the Never Trumpers are now Democrats.

In this real world in which we live, Trump will continue operating contrary to our democratic principles and values.  It's going to alienate the Never Trumpers even further.  And it's going to make the rump of the Republican Party even more complicit.  It'll be more and more the Trumpublican Party.

As I said at the outset, having this large number of relatively conservative voters join its ranks is going to change the Democratic Party.  But I don't think it necessarily means that the Democratic Party is going to move right.  Having that reliable base of support gives a party freedom to be more ideologically flexible.  And that means that it'll be able to adopt more progressive positions in the future, since it has the knowledge that no matter what it does it has the votes of these people.

[Wulaw Horn 19560]

2 hours ago, Voldemort86 said:

I know the vast majority of Americans have short memories and don’t remember the petty details, but are you saying the same Marco Rubio who got totally pantsed by trump in the GOP primary by Trump, said repeatedly during debates that he wouldn’t go back to his senate seat, then came crawling back to his senate seat after only the people of Minnesota thought he would be a good president?

i’m very skeptical that this man or jebra bush could successfully navigate the GOP primary. You have to have some nastiness to make it through that shit show. Those guys don’t really have it in them.

Yeah that same guy. He was young and on his first run in the national spotlight. He will have at least 8 years and will likely have learned. If he's smart and tough he will get better as most people who are smart and tough do from a learning experience. If he isn't then he will get smoked again.  

I don't see Jeb.  Next Bush with a legit shot at being president is probably son of Jeb in 2032.  Especially if he has any fire to him.  

[Guest Lobo]

14 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

 

I know it's a bit dicey out there, but the Democratic Party of Texas should be embarrassed of itself right now for not having mobile registration drives going on near these protests.  Even just a dozen folks clearly labeled with clipboards to register on site, or at least give people information on how to register to vote.  May as well make the last days of American civility somewhat productive.  

I pulled a Democrat ballot for the primary.  I'm voting D again in the runoffs next month.  And I'm sporting a "Biden 2020" mask when I go to the polls in November.  

Fun fact-you can't wear any articles of clothing or accessories (hats, arm-bands, etc.) supporting a particular candidate or party into a voting location in Texas nor can you carry  signage to that effect.    There is no law prohibiting writing on a mask worn for health purposes.  You can't wear a Biden 2020 hockey mask.  But you can sport a surgical mask that says it.  

[Wulaw Horn 19560]

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

The scenario in which Trump decides to step aside is a scenario in which Trump isn't Trump.  He won't do that, because he's a narcissist who doesn't believe he could possibly lose.  And Trump being Trump is precisely why the Never Trumpers are now Democrats.

In this real world in which we live, Trump will continue operating contrary to our democratic principles and values.  It's going to alienate the Never Trumpers even further.  And it's going to make the rump of the Republican Party even more complicit.  It'll be more and more the Trumpublican Party.

As I said at the outset, having this large number of relatively conservative voters join its ranks is going to change the Democratic Party.  But I don't think it necessarily means that the Democratic Party is going to move right.  Having that reliable base of support gives a party freedom to be more ideologically flexible.  And that means that it'll be able to adopt more progressive positions in the future, since it has the knowledge that no matter what it does it has the votes of these people.

That last sentence is absurd (unless it has the caveat- if the GOP never figures it out) because at some point in time you will lose voters over policy, if the other side isn't actively trying to piss them off.  At some point Trump loses, loses spectacularly, and the people that liked him decide that they loathe him because he's a loser just like John McCain, who got captured by the commies.  Because for some group of people the only thing that snaps into place is whether you win or lose. And when Trump loses he will be left for dead (he says, praying he's right). 

You really telling me that the Dems can run as far and as fast to the left as they like and you are still voting for them if the GOP rejects Trumpism and wanders in the wilderness for a while? I doubt it.  

Also, there's this, results matter. If what the Dems want to do flat doesn't work for us as a country at some point in time there becomes an emperor has no clothes moment- especially with college educated suburbanites.

Now- if you are saying as long as Trump is the titular head of the party, sure.  But that won't survive the buttfucking he's about to get. 

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

3 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

And I really don't think the average person that's disgusted by Trump is up in arms all that much about policy. 

You aren’t paying enough attention. Taxation priorities, corruption, trade policy, backing out of nuclear proliferation and Iran deals, sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, immigration, FCC regulation policies affecting the internet, sale of federal lands, use of troops on the border, building a fucking wall, name me a policy area and I can find scores of people up in arms about the administration’s policies 

[Wulaw Horn 19560]

7 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

You aren’t paying enough attention. Taxation priorities, corruption, trade policy, backing out of nuclear proliferation and Iran deals, sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, immigration, FCC regulation policies affecting the internet, sale of federal lands, use of troops on the border, building a fucking wall, name me a policy area and I can find scores of people up in arms about the administration’s policies 

Sure. You can find scores of people upset about any policy position anytime you pick a position. That’s the nature of

policy fights, especially over hard issues , if the solution was easy or universal we’d just do it and it wouldn’t be an issue. 

Nobody hates trump because of his policy on net neutrality to pick one. They hate him because he’s a narcissistic asshole and a megalomaniac who treats people not on his side like they are pond scum. 

And LL might be right and I might be wrong. I just subscribe to the pendulum theory of politics because that’s what we’ve seen, but he might be a realigning factor in politics that changes the entire board. 

Edited June 3, 2020 by Wulaw Horn

[Horn Dogg 4277]

3 hours ago, The Dog said:

I don't get this take at all. If Trump loses he's done. He's not going to pull a Grover Cleveland.

I think you’re making the assumption that Trump has an ounce of shame in his body.  That narcissist won’t stop until he dies.

[Ghost of LL 15664]

8 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

That last sentence is absurd (unless it has the caveat- if the GOP never figures it out) because at some point in time you will lose voters over policy, if the other side isn't actively trying to piss them off.  At some point Trump loses, loses spectacularly, and the people that liked him decide that they loathe him because he's a loser just like John McCain, who got captured by the commies.  Because for some group of people the only thing that snaps into place is whether you win or lose. And when Trump loses he will be left for dead (he says, praying he's right). 

You really telling me that the Dems can run as far and as fast to the left as they like and you are still voting for them if the GOP rejects Trumpism and wanders in the wilderness for a while? I doubt it.  

Also, there's this, results matter. If what the Dems want to do flat doesn't work for us as a country at some point in time there becomes an emperor has no clothes moment- especially with college educated suburbanites.

Now- if you are saying as long as Trump is the titular head of the party, sure.  But that won't survive the buttfucking he's about to get. 

Yeah, I mean, there's a time issue involved, isn't there?

So long as Trump is the head of the party, the Never Trumpers are staying Democrats irrespective of any policy issues.  And I think Trump is going to remain the head of the party as long as he's alive.  And that's probably until about 2028.

After that, then results do matter.  I mean, eventually the South abandoned the Democratic Party.  But that takes time.  And for it to happen with the South/Democrats, it took something really dramatic.

Same thing here.

 

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

5 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Sure. You can find scores of people upset about any policy position anytime you pick a position. That’s the nature of

policy fights, especially over hard issues , if the solution was easy or universal we’d just do it and it wouldn’t be an issue. 

Nobody hates trump because of his policy on net neutrality to pick one. They hate him because he’s a narcissistic asshole and a megalomaniac who treats people not on his side like they are pond scum. 

And LL might be right and I might be wrong. I just subscribe to the pendulum theory of politics because that’s what we’ve seen, but he might be a realigning factor in politics that changes the entire board. 

You attempted to make the point that people support his policies but hate his presentation. That’s absurd. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

26 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I'd love Scott Walker. He was my guy in 2016 and he dropped out and said everyone else should clear the field so the anti Trump vote could coalesce and stop him (like the Dems did with Bernie in 2020).  Paul Ryan? He clearly loathed Trump and then quit, and he's certainly not somebody anyone could accuse of being dumb.  

I like and respect you, and the fact that you genuinely seem to not understand that Scott Walker is a feckless hired hand for the powerful, a lazy, zero-integrity fraud who made a career out of bad deals on the public dime, and dumb as a stump besides, baffles me. 

Edited June 3, 2020 by Bozo_Casanova

[Wulaw Horn 19560]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Yeah, I mean, there's a time issue involved, isn't there?

So long as Trump is the head of the party, the Never Trumpers are staying Democrats irrespective of any policy issues.  And I think Trump is going to remain the head of the party as long as he's alive.  And that's probably until about 2028.

After that, then results do matter.  I mean, eventually the South abandoned the Democratic Party.  But that takes time.  And for it to happen with the South/Democrats, it took something really dramatic.

Same thing here.

 

Sure. I'm just a little more optimistic at a conservative despising Trumpism that he becomes swept into the dustbin of history after he gets his ass kicked. I voted for Ted Cruz 3 times in 2012 and then for president in 2016 in the primaries. In 2018 I showed up and cast 1 vote on the entire ballot- for Harris County judge (GOP- and a damn fine leader for Harris County). He lost to a ghost candidate but came closer to winning his election than anyone else in Harris County. I won't ever vote for Cruz again after the way he bowed and scraped before Trump after he was eviscerated, but that antipathy won't last forever and won't outlast Trump being kicked out of the party.

If you are right and he's the titular head of the party then sure, the GOP is right proper fucked as long as he runs things. I just don't see  him being relevant, at his age and his brand of "I'm a winner" being relevant for 2 more cycles after he gets donkey punched in 2020. 

Worst case scenario for the GOP is he loses by a couple states that are really close, and blames it on the 'Rona destroying the economy, and the economy remains a dumpster fire in 2024 giving him a shred of a chance. But if it's 350+ electoral votes for the Dems he can't fade that. I don't think.  Politics isn't a suicide pact based upon a cult of personality.  Witness the marginalization of Hillary Clinton post 2016 electoral failure. 

[Wulaw Horn 19560]

4 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

You attempted to make the point that people support his policies but hate his presentation. That’s absurd. 

No- two separate points I made:

1) the policy positions I talked about are more or less supported by the main body of conservatives

2) He's not actively loathed because of his policies. He's actively loathed because of his personality. 

[kevwun 16269]

4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I like and respect you, and the fact that you genuinely seem to not understand that Scott Walker is a feckless hired hand for the powerful, a lazy, zero-integrity fraud who made a career out of bad deals on the public dime, and dumb as a stump besides, baffles me. 

He is the Wisconsin version of Rick Perry.

[cactusflinthead 27626]

More on that Quinnipiac poll

 

[Ghost of LL 15664]

9 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Sure. I'm just a little more optimistic at a conservative despising Trumpism that he becomes swept into the dustbin of history after he gets his ass kicked. I voted for Ted Cruz 3 times in 2012 and then for president in 2016 in the primaries. In 2018 I showed up and cast 1 vote on the entire ballot- for Harris County judge (GOP- and a damn fine leader for Harris County). He lost to a ghost candidate but came closer to winning his election than anyone else in Harris County. I won't ever vote for Cruz again after the way he bowed and scraped before Trump after he was eviscerated, but that antipathy won't last forever and won't outlast Trump being kicked out of the party.

If you are right and he's the titular head of the party then sure, the GOP is right proper fucked as long as he runs things. I just don't see  him being relevant, at his age and his brand of "I'm a winner" being relevant for 2 more cycles after he gets donkey punched in 2020. 

Worst case scenario for the GOP is he loses by a couple states that are really close, and blames it on the 'Rona destroying the economy, and the economy remains a dumpster fire in 2024 giving him a shred of a chance. But if it's 350+ electoral votes for the Dems he can't fade that. I don't think.  Politics isn't a suicide pact based upon a cult of personality.  Witness the marginalization of Hillary Clinton post 2016 electoral failure. 

And what I'm telling you is that conservatism, as an ideology, is dead.

[Wulaw Horn 19560]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I like and respect you, and the fact that you genuinely seem to not understand that Scott Walker is a feckless hired hand for the powerful, a lazy, zero-integrity fraud who made a career out of bad deals on the public dime, and dumb as a stump besides, baffles me. 

Here is the sum total of my experience with Scott Walker

1) Cheering from afar as he goes after public unions.  I'm fine with union and management being in a fight as long as it's an actual fight where two sides/perspectives are in play.  Public sector unions negotiating with politicians leaves nobody looking out for the tax payers in a way that GM management is looking out for the shareholders when they fight with their union.  I don't think this is super controversial (you might disagree, and you might have even more knowledge of the subject than I do) and I've even heard quotes from FDR condemning the idea of public unions for basically the same principle I just said.

2) He had a lane he could run in from 2016. He dropped out and tried to get others to drop out before there was a single vote to consolidate support against Trump.  That's being on the morally correct side of an issue

3) I took a political quiz about who lines up with you on the most issues and he scored a 98% similarity score. I think the next closest was Cruz at 92. But Walker doesn't have a punchable face and didn't cow-tow to Trump in the run up to 2016.

I will take your word for it on the other stuff that you said as an article of faith and say "I'm certainly open to any and all candidates from the GOP who I believe will respect the sanctity of life and not be an asshole on a personal level," which are my two disqualifying issues in an election. He hasn't failed either so far for me (but I was wrong about Cruz, obviously) which is why he's at the top of my support list, and why I haven't supported a GOP candidate for president since W. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

1 minute ago, kevwun said:

He is the Wisconsin version of Rick Perry.

Rick Perry is all of those things, but he's got fantastic political instincts and is apparently also fun to be around. Scott Walker has bad instincts and about as fun as a planning commission meeting in Buda. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Chuckie Finster 22978]

Here is the sum total of my experience with Scott Walker
1) Cheering from afar as he goes after public unions.  I'm fine with union and management being in a fight as long as it's an actual fight where two sides/perspectives are in play.  Public sector unions negotiating with politicians leaves nobody looking out for the tax payers in a way that GM management is looking out for the shareholders when they fight with their union.  I don't think this is super controversial (you might disagree, and you might have even more knowledge of the subject than I do) and I've even heard quotes from FDR condemning the idea of public unions for basically the same principle I just said.
2) He had a lane he could run in from 2016. He dropped out and tried to get others to drop out before there was a single vote to consolidate support against Trump.  That's being on the morally correct side of an issue
3) I took a political quiz about who lines up with you on the most issues and he scored a 98% similarity score. I think the next closest was Cruz at 92. But Walker doesn't have a punchable face and didn't cow-tow to Trump in the run up to 2016.
I will take your word for it on the other stuff that you said as an article of faith and say "I'm certainly open to any and all candidates from the GOP who I believe will respect the sanctity of life and not be an asshole on a personal level," which are my two disqualifying issues in an election. He hasn't failed either so far for me (but I was wrong about Cruz, obviously) which is why he's at the top of my support list, and why I haven't supported a GOP candidate for president since W. 

I mean... he tweeted this two days ago:

[Wulaw Horn 19560]

7 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And what I'm telling you is that conservatism, as an ideology, is dead.

I don't think such a thing is possible (nor is the death of liberalism)
At its base conservatism is the idea that we need to be careful with how we remake the world because when you try something new if you push too hard and too fast there may be negative consequences.  So, there needs to be a brake on change.  That won't/can't ever die. The issues that are fought over might be different, but end of the day there will always be a counterbalancing force against running 100 miles an hour into the dead of the night. 

I think anyway.  A world where that doesn't exist makes no sense to me. 

[Wulaw Horn 19560]

10 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Rick Perry is all of those things, but he's got fantastic political instincts and is apparently also fun to be around. Scott Walker has bad instincts and about as fun as a planning commission meeting in Buda. 

Rick Perry has great hair and looks like executive material. 

[Ghost of LL 15664]

Just now, Wulaw Horn said:

I don't think such a thing is possible (nor is the death of liberalism)
At its base conservatism is the idea that we need to be careful with how we remake the world because when you try something new if you push too hard and too fast there may be negative consequences.  So, there needs to be a brake on change.  That won't/can't ever die. The issues that are fought over might be different, but end of the day there will always be a counterbalancing force against running 100 miles an hour into the dead of the night. 

I think anyway.  A world where that doesn't exist makes no sense to me. 

American conservatism--the ideology rooted in Goldwater's ideas and that flourished under Reagan--is dead.

Better?

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

1 minute ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Here is the sum total of my experience with Scott Walker

1) Cheering from afar as he goes after public unions.  I'm fine with union and management being in a fight as long as it's an actual fight where two sides/perspectives are in play.  Public sector unions negotiating with politicians leaves nobody looking out for the tax payers in a way that GM management is looking out for the shareholders when they fight with their union.  I don't think this is super controversial (you might disagree, and you might have even more knowledge of the subject than I do) and I've even heard quotes from FDR condemning the idea of public unions for basically the same principle I just said.

2) He had a lane he could run in from 2016. He dropped out and tried to get others to drop out before there was a single vote to consolidate support against Trump.  That's being on the morally correct side of an issue

3) I took a political quiz about who lines up with you on the most issues and he scored a 98% similarity score. I think the next closest was Cruz at 92. But Walker doesn't have a punchable face and didn't cow-tow to Trump in the run up to 2016.

I will take your word for it on the other stuff that you said as an article of faith and say "I'm certainly open to any and all candidates from the GOP who I believe will respect the sanctity of life and not be an asshole on a personal level," which are my two disqualifying issues in an election. He hasn't failed either so far for me (but I was wrong about Cruz, obviously) which is why he's at the top of my support list, and why I haven't supported a GOP candidate for president since W. 

1) Fine. But he isn't driven by some principle of his own on this, he's an agent of others. And for the public sector unions that backed him, like the Wisconsin State Troopers, it was a different story.
2) He had a lane he could run in because people like you and Tahoe thought he was something other than himself, but blew it early, because he lacks talent and doesn't have a real stand on anything. 
3) Those quizzes don't work with Scott Walker because he takes all positions at all times. 

[Wulaw Horn 19560]

7 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I mean... he tweeted this two days ago:

 

 

 

 

Fuck me. Cross him off the list then.  It's pretty much that simple with me. I liked the guy in 2015 warning against the Trump apocalypse better. As I said- I pay attention to nothing in the media and just a cursory check here for any news of the day shit. 

[Wulaw Horn 19560]

7 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

American conservatism--the ideology rooted in Goldwater's ideas and that flourished under Reagan--is dead.

Better?

Probably.  But that's the nature of anything, isn't it? Outside of faith, and that both changes and stays the same in a really interesting way.  As my pal @Bozo Casonova likes to say, parties aren't a group of ideaologes they are something something something (coalition of people trying to win elections as a short hand for you Bozo- that work as a paraphrase?) so you'd expect a seed planted in 1964 and watered and grown in the 80's to go the way of the dodo eventually.  

Edited June 3, 2020 by Wulaw Horn

[Chuckie Finster 22978]

3 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Fuck me. Cross him off the list then.  It's pretty much that simple with me. I liked the guy in 2015 warning against the Trump apocalypse better. As I said- I pay attention to nothing in the media and just a cursory check here for any news of the day shit. 

I think that's a core issue that disgusts so many of us.  It's so obvious that a large portion of the party believes that Trump is a dangerous dumbass, yet they pretend to worship the guy purely for political points.  The chucklefucks like Gaetz and Nunes who genuinely approve of Trump are annoying, but the people who should be smart enough to know better yet remain silent are a key reason many of us have no intention of returning to the party.

Edited June 3, 2020 by Chuckie Finster

[Wulaw Horn 19560]

Fuck me.  This is why I logged off 3 or 4 years ago and didn't log back on until the 'Rona made my time matter less. I set a clock on it and said back to work at 2:00 and now :43 minutes later I'm still fucking around on here. 
Have enjoyed the conversation and if anyone else has anything else I will probably touch base again with you at 9:00 or 10:00 when I'm having a beer after the kids and wife are down for the night.

I work for myself and I have to make my time bill out at $500 an hour (productive value), who the hell do I send this bill to, as I can't just charge it to the Anderson matter like the rest of you assholes in the legal community on here. 

[LonghornSean 4072]

1 hour ago, Bruh Man said:

 

 

Stuff like this worries me though:

Quote

Elfant said voter registration had “flatlined” in his county. Under normal circumstances, the county would add a few thousand voters to its rolls each month. But in the last few months, his office had added just 500 total, he said. In Tarrant and Harris counties, two of the biggest in the state, officials said they have also seen similar dips in voter registration.

Heider Garcia, the election administrator in Tarrant county, hypothesized the drop in voter registrations was because state motor vehicle licensing offices, usually a hub of voter registrations, have been closed. Advocacy groups have also been unable to conduct voter registration drives in person.