Jump to content
hogan873

2020 Election Thoughts

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, Quin said:

But also taking a deeper dive into the poll, this is all Americans.

  • 32% believe Biden's victory is illegitimate.
  • 23% of people say he didn't do anything wrong whatsoever.

There's this from Quinnipiac, too

 

Now, that is a drop from 90%+ job approval, but still. Less than a week out from inciting an insurrection and Republicans still overwhelmingly back him. That so much of Trumpism and the modern-day conservative movement is based on propaganda and lies is a very difficult problem to overcome. Who can ever break through that bubble, and how would they do it?

The entire "stop the steal" movement had the backing of a majority of the House GOP, a significant portion of the Senate GOP, and numerous state-level GOP officials across the country. It had the support of every major GOP political org and media operation. Some of that was cynical, doing it for fundraising and to undermine their political opponents' legitimacy, but it's not hard to lose control of a monster like that.

 

So where's the incentive for elected Republicans to stand up for this? By and large, this is what their primary voters want. And, as they've very clearly shown, at least some of them are ready and willing to commit violence and even murder to get what they want.

Edited by StrangeSox
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

There's this from Quinnipiac, too

 

Now, that is a drop from 90%+ job approval, but still. Less than a week out from inciting an insurrection and Republicans still overwhelmingly back him. That so much of Trumpism and the modern-day conservative movement is based on propaganda and lies is a very difficult problem to overcome. Who can ever break through that bubble, and how would they do it?

The entire "stop the steal" movement had the backing of a majority of the House GOP, a significant portion of the Senate GOP, and numerous state-level GOP officials across the country. It had the support of every major GOP political org and media operation. Some of that was cynical, doing it for fundraising and to undermine their political opponents' legitimacy, but it's not hard to lose control of a monster like that.

 

So where's the incentive for elected Republicans to stand up for this? By and large, this is what their primary voters want. And, as they've very clearly shown, at least some of them are ready and willing to commit violence and even murder to get what they want.

Do they have similar polls from 2000 when Bush/Gore happened? I'm just curious if the same question was asked than to a democrat, what % thought, for example, that there was widespread voter fraud in 2000.  Legitimate question - not trying to be a smart alleck.  

Additionally - I truly believe there is a difference between Trump and Cruz. I can't stand them both, but I don't believe for one second that Cruz would want or support violence. Now he may have indirectly led to hit by the use of his words and rhetoric, but I believe Cruz is more a constitutionalist who believes in following the various process and he is simply voicing what many on the right have said, which is open things open and go through more checks. We can all say what we think - which is it is crazy and there have already been 60 some odd cases with no this or that, but what he is asking for is for a pure investigation of the matter. He is not asking people to riot or incite violence.  He was not on the stage like Rudy and some of the Trumps telling people to go do x and y.

I think of Cruz as the guy who is just a total rightist lawyer who just wants to push everything, but in a pencil pusher type of way that fits his narrative. I can't stand the guy - but I don't necessarily think the guy is demanding an insurrection or anything of the like. He just wants to push his narrative so he can push that same view to parts of the party that he ultimately needs (or at least feels he needs) in order to keep his power, etc. Call it the placate the president without breaching the constitution.  Reality is - I think he didn't want to go toe to toe with Trump, so he called for what would be a waste of government resources but would quietly placate his relationship with the party and prevent him from Trump's fire, while also assuming everything would go away in 2 weeks when Biden took over. I think most of the members of the right who were saying those things were doing exactly that as well (not just Cruz).  They were purely stating - constitution says we can do such and since #45 has said as much and keeps demanding as much, lets go through the process and show that everything was on the up and up (even if it already has been done 60 times).  

I will note I won't make that same statement of others on the right who I think are in the exact same camp as Trump and I still think of majority on the right as total spineless in their constant approval of #45 despite so many reckless choices he made.  The above are just my views of Cruz and I have no idea - maybe he is just extreme in his wishes as Rudy and Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

There's this from Quinnipiac, too

 

Now, that is a drop from 90%+ job approval, but still. Less than a week out from inciting an insurrection and Republicans still overwhelmingly back him. That so much of Trumpism and the modern-day conservative movement is based on propaganda and lies is a very difficult problem to overcome. Who can ever break through that bubble, and how would they do it?

The entire "stop the steal" movement had the backing of a majority of the House GOP, a significant portion of the Senate GOP, and numerous state-level GOP officials across the country. It had the support of every major GOP political org and media operation. Some of that was cynical, doing it for fundraising and to undermine their political opponents' legitimacy, but it's not hard to lose control of a monster like that.

 

So where's the incentive for elected Republicans to stand up for this? By and large, this is what their primary voters want. And, as they've very clearly shown, at least some of them are ready and willing to commit violence and even murder to get what they want.

The fact that 30% of a party no longer backs him is actually pretty strong - given how much Americans toe party line.  Like I said - I would be curious to see some of the stats that happened back in 2000 (or whenever Gore vs. Bush happened).  And again - not insinuating that there was an insurrection than - but obviously there was a lot of debate on both sides on whether the elections were "rigged" and whether their was widespread voter "fraud".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By my quick research, the 33% approval rating he got in that Quinnipiac poll is the lowest national rating he has received in a single poll in over 800 days. An outlier poll from Long Island University gave him a 29% approval rating on October 22, 2018.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KipWellsFan said:

By my quick research, the 33% approval rating he got in that Quinnipiac poll is the lowest national rating he has received in a single poll in over 800 days. An outlier poll from Long Island University gave him a 29% approval rating on October 22, 2018.

He also has the lowest average approval rating of any president dating back to back to 1938-1942 under FDR.  I couldn't find data beyond that so for all I know it is the lowest ever. So this assertion that everyone likes the guy is just not true, but he does have a very loud, core base.  That is 100% true.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be interesting to see is where that “lost” 30% would be going?

Lost to GOP?, unlikely but but not impossible to fathom.

In other words, how many of respondents are being mostly affected or influenced by the events of last week...but would be likely to vote for Trump, or a Trump family member or surrogate again in the future?

How many are actually sticking with Trump but embarrassed to be on his side still after Wednesday due to the nature of polling by phone vs. more impersonal methods that preserve anonymity?

How many are even MORE strongly bonded to him?

If there was a theoretical presidential election coming up in just 1-2 years instead of 4, who would they be supporting as the GOP nominee against a generic Dem candidate?   How many will never support a Trump again, period?

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

StrangeSox and Jack Parkman,

Just out of curiosity, are you guys excited about Biden’s term in office? What do you guys each think about the policies he and congress could get done? 

Regarding impeachment, when should the senate take up impeachment and what do each of you believe the outcome will be? What do each of you think the separate vote will be for stopping Trump from running for office again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Beast said:

StrangeSox and Jack Parkman,

Just out of curiosity, are you guys excited about Biden’s term in office? What do you guys each think about the policies he and congress could get done? 

Regarding impeachment, when should the senate take up impeachment and what do each of you believe the outcome will be? What do each of you think the separate vote will be for stopping Trump from running for office again?

I'm pretty neutral on Biden. I don't think he's going to change much, but if they could get an overhaul of the ACA to make it more affordable and student debt forgiveness passed that would be a huge win from a Biden administration. I am nowhere close to expecting things like M4A or the GND. 

Realistic goals: 

Some bit of student debt forgiveness, even if not complete. Programs for relief for people drowning.

ACA overhaul, making healthcare more affordable for the average American

Some sort of criminal justice reform

Enforcement of the Sherman Antitrust act for the first time in 40+ years

National infrastructure repair program to help boost the economy post-covid

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jack Parkman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McConnell is doing what he can to stall a Senate trial. He is not doing it out principle. He probably fears for his life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Beast said:

StrangeSox and Jack Parkman,

Just out of curiosity, are you guys 1) excited about Biden’s term in office? 2) What do you guys each think about the policies he and congress could get done? 

Regarding impeachment, 3) when should the senate take up impeachment and what do each of you 4) believe the outcome will be? 5)What do each of you think the separate vote will be for stopping Trump from running for office again?

 

  1. No. I'm very glad Trump lost. I'm glad the Democrats took the Senate and kept the House. I was bitterly disappointed that Biden won the primary.
  2. Not a whole lot, but much more than I expected a week ago before the Dems took back the Senate* Particularly when it comes to vital state and local aid so we don't have a another massive wave of unemployment as vital services and functions are cut. I don't expect them to be able to end the filibuster or reform the courts, but if they're able to ditch the Byrd rule for reconciliation bills**, they may be able to pass important democratic/voting rights reform and potentially even DC/PR statehood. Their margin in both chambers of Congress is so slim that it'll be a big lift to get everyone on board for bold yet important policies, though.
  3. Immediately
  4. Acquittal because the GOP is a Trumpist party
  5. Should use it along with the powers of the 14th to block him, but they won't.

 

*Assumes the violent fascist threat to our democracy is put down and the government can function in a somewhat normal manner

 

**Reconciliation bills give Congress a once-a-year ability to pass a bill with a simple majority that isn't subject to a filibuster. The GOP used that to try to get through an ACA repeal and then to push through tax cuts for billionaires. Currently, it's subject to the "Byrd rule" that limits it to financial matters only. Congress could choose to end that rule on a simple majority vote so that policy changes like voting rights or even statehood admittance could happen under reconciliation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Still probably the most fucked up thing was new Rep. Boebert live-tweeting Pelosi's location as her fellow travelers were violently storming the Capitol.

 

There will be at least some GOP support for impeachment tomorrow, though

 

 

shit's not ending any time soon, either:

 

Edited by StrangeSox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

**Reconciliation bills give Congress a once-a-year ability to pass a bill with a simple majority that isn't subject to a filibuster. The GOP used that to try to get through an ACA repeal and then to push through tax cuts for billionaires. Currently, it's subject to the "Byrd rule" that limits it to financial matters only. Congress could choose to end that rule on a simple majority vote so that policy changes like voting rights or even statehood admittance could happen under reconciliation.

If the Democrats are going to get one bite at a filibuster-proof bill in the first year, this is what it should be:

1) Expanding the size of the House of Representatives to 1000, beginning on January 3, 2025

2) Statehood for Puerto Rico

3) Shrink the size of the District of Columbia to the area bounded by K St NW/NE, 11th St NE/SE, the Anacostia River and the Potomac River, and retrocede the rest to Maryland. I don't like the idea of the core of DC not being under Federal Control, and making a state and giving 2 Senators out of an area as small as DC is a blatant power grab and the Democrats need to be better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything about how our states got their shapes was about political power, though. The State of DC would have more people than Vermont or Wyoming and not that much less than the Dakotas or Alaska. Focus on the number of people there, not the acreage. Heck, the Dakotas are a great example of two states that should be one but were split up explicitly to give the party in power more seats.

You could create the state of DC and then still have a federal district as you described that would have zero or near-zero residency.

You don't get any points and you don't get any political power for "taking the high road" and letting your political opposition maintain vastly disproportionate control given the number of voters for each party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

Everything about how our states got their shapes was about political power, though. The State of DC would have more people than Vermont or Wyoming and not that much less than the Dakotas or Alaska. Focus on the number of people there, not the acreage. Heck, the Dakotas are a great example of two states that should be one but were split up explicitly to give the party in power more seats.

You could create the state of DC and then still have a federal district as you described that would have zero or near-zero residency.

You don't get any points and you don't get any political power for "taking the high road" and letting your political opposition maintain vastly disproportionate control given the number of voters for each party.

Making PR a state and expanding the house to 1000 already does plenty to tip the balance, plus adding the balance of DC to Maryland still adds a very blue seat to the House. Give up the statehood to grease the skids on the other things. It's still a huge win for fairness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at you - giving the right a hard time for them not believing an election is fixed and here you are with your first order of business to just rig things to the other side. Totally hypocritical and an awful look if that is what the parties were to do.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chisoxfn said:

Look at you - giving the right a hard time for them not believing an election is fixed and here you are with your first order of business to just rig things to the other side. Totally hypocritical and an awful look if that is what the parties were to do.    

PR statehood isn't rigging things. They're a territory of sufficient size and if they want to become a state they should regardless of how it plays out politically. If PR were predominantly Republican I'd feel the same way. I think DC is more of a pure power grab and that's why I'm against it. Expanding the size of the House significantly is way past due and while it may benefit Democrats initially, in the long term is creates more moderate districts and reduces the influence of money in any individual district and I think that's a win for everybody.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

Look at you - giving the right a hard time for them not believing an election is fixed and here you are with your first order of business to just rig things to the other side. Totally hypocritical and an awful look if that is what the parties were to do.    

It's not rigging things. Our Constitution has clear rules and processes for admitting new states. There's no reason the hundreds of thousands of people in DC or the millions in PR should be subject to federal law with no real say. The alternative is for tens of millions more Americans to accept that the current structure of the Senate means we'll always be dominated by white minority rule. If Republicans want to push for other US territories to become states, great! I think colonialism is bad and that these people should have full representation in the governments they're subject to. It's more rigging things to make sure that millions of American citizens remain without a voice and without a vote.

 

I'm giving the right "a hard time" for launching a violent fascist insurrection bent on murdering Congress and the VP and overturning free and fair elections. There's quite a bit of difference between these two things.

Edited by StrangeSox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently Trump said that after reading over the transcripts of what he said, "people" thought what he told his group of terrorists was totally appropriate.  Said impeaching him again would only make people angry.

The RNC Chairman, a relative of Mitt, says impeachment would only further divide and not unite and heal, like trying to throw out millions of legit votes does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile conservative politicians and media continue to threaten violence if there is any accountability

 

"look what you made me do"

Edited by StrangeSox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×