The Dangerous Case Of Donald Trump

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Whoever gets the Democratic nomination will receive support from all factions of the populace who are seeking to protect democracy. And if Democrats actually come out to vote, Republicans don't stand a chance. Remember: In absolute numbers, there are a lot more Democrats, democrats, liberals, and people of decency in the US than there are Republicans. That is why they need voter-ID laws and gerrymandering.

There has not been a new Republican president winning the popular vote since 1989!

Dubya won the popular vote in 2004 against the "electable" John Kerry.

 

[Nicodemus]

Dubya won the popular vote in 2004 against the "electable" John Kerry.

Re-election. He was already president at the time.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Re-election. He was already president at the time.

So would Trump.

 

[Nicodemus]

So would Trump.

Yes, if voter turnout is low, that may indeed happen. My argument was premised on a high turnout.

Mind-bogglingly enough, it was at the end of the 1960's that voter turnout last reached 60%. But can you find a better match for today's political divisions than the late 60's?

 

[Jaguar]

Dubya won the popular vote in 2004 against the "electable" John Kerry.

John Kerry took heat for taking an anti-war stance after returning from Vietnam. Many vets didn't take too kindly to his position, so they came out of the woodwork to fuck with him when he was running for president. The Swift Boat veterans controversy was probably paid for by the Republicans. It wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

John Kerry took heat for taking an anti-war stance after returning from Vietnam. Many vets didn't take too kindly to his position, so they came out of the woodwork to fuck with him when he was running for president. The Swift Boat veterans controversy was probably paid for by the Republicans. It wouldn't surprise me.

Thank god that in Biden's long career, he's never done anything that could haunt him.

 

[Jaguar]

Thank god that in Biden's long career, he's never done anything that could haunt him.

I couldn't care less.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I couldn't care less.

Too bad every voter in America isn't a Jaguar clone.

 

[Jaguar]

Too bad every voter in America isn't a Jaguar clone.

.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Yes, if voter turnout is low, that may indeed happen. My argument was premised on a high turnout.

Mind-bogglingly enough, it was at the end of the 1960's that voter turnout last reached 60%. But can you find a better match for today's political divisions than the late 60's?

Ah, well here is the problem. Suppose a candidate like Biden or someone else is nominee, and this person was considered the best choice by many "experts". But suppose they just don't arouse a ton of enthusiasm. This could easily lead to many dems either staying home or defecting for third party candidates. If Biden makes the mistake of changing positions a lot, he'll compound the problem, as it will lead many independent voters to see him as ingenuine or a "flip-flopper". He needs to watch his ass and what he says if he is the nominee.

That's pretty much what happened in 2004. And it happened in 2016. A lot of former Bernie supporters did vote for Clinton, but while they might have been very enthusiastic and encouraged others to vote for Sanders, what you had were a lot of disappointed people who just did the bare minimum and pulled the lever for Hillary, but otherwise did nothing. Not to mention Sanders voters who either stayed home or voted for Stein or some other person. I remember an NPR story from 2016, right before the election, and they spoke to former Sanders supporters who were voting for Hillary. Some said that had he been nominee they would have been actively campaigning, going door-to-door and encouraging others to vote for him. But they said they just didn't have it in them to do the same for Hillary, especially after all of the DNC shenanigans the previous Spring and Summer.

Biden is not a candidate who's ever really aroused a ton of enthusiasm. He was a great veep, but look at all his failed runs for prez. People need to be careful not to assume Obama's popularity will carry over to Biden. Gore assumed he could just ride into the white house on Clinton's high approval ratings.

 

[anticlimatic]

He has destroyed the Republican party. Wait for what happens once he is gone. It will require major change to remain relevant without Trump, simply because it no longer stands for anything beside Trump.

Naw. People made similar proclamations when Obama was elected.

Stupid people.

Thank you for making the owl's point.

 

[Nicodemus]

Ah, well here is the problem. Suppose a candidate like Biden or someone else is nominee, and this person was considered the best choice by many "experts". But suppose they just don't arouse a ton of enthusiasm. This could easily lead to many dems either staying home or defecting for third party candidates. If Biden makes the mistake of changing positions a lot, he'll compound the problem, as it will lead many independent voters to see him as ingenuine or a "flip-flopper". He needs to watch his ass and what he says if he is the nominee.

That's pretty much what happened in 2004. And it happened in 2016. A lot of former Bernie supporters did vote for Clinton, but while they might have been very enthusiastic and encouraged others to vote for Sanders, what you had were a lot of disappointed people who just did the bare minimum and pulled the lever for Hillary, but otherwise did nothing. Not to mention Sanders voters who either stayed home or voted for Stein or some other person. I remember an NPR story from 2016, right before the election, and they spoke to former Sanders supporters who were voting for Hillary. Some said that had he been nominee they would have been actively campaigning, going door-to-door and encouraging others to vote for him. But they said they just didn't have it in them to do the same for Hillary, especially after all of the DNC shenanigans the previous Spring and Summer.

Biden is not a candidate who's ever really aroused a ton of enthusiasm. He was a great veep, but look at all his failed runs for prez. People need to be careful not to assume Obama's popularity will carry over to Biden. Gore assumed he could just ride into the white house on Clinton's high approval ratings.

Well, my guess and my hope is that Biden is going to tank before people are unable to get behind someone else. Because Biden really is nothing more than the lowest common denominator.

Thank you for making the owl's point.

Owls are comparatively silly birds.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Ah, well here is the problem. Suppose a candidate like Biden or someone else is nominee, and this person was considered the best choice by many "experts". But suppose they just don't arouse a ton of enthusiasm. This could easily lead to many dems either staying home or defecting for third party candidates. If Biden makes the mistake of changing positions a lot, he'll compound the problem, as it will lead many independent voters to see him as ingenuine or a "flip-flopper". He needs to watch his ass and what he says if he is the nominee.

That's pretty much what happened in 2004. And it happened in 2016. A lot of former Bernie supporters did vote for Clinton, but while they might have been very enthusiastic and encouraged others to vote for Sanders, what you had were a lot of disappointed people who just did the bare minimum and pulled the lever for Hillary, but otherwise did nothing. Not to mention Sanders voters who either stayed home or voted for Stein or some other person. I remember an NPR story from 2016, right before the election, and they spoke to former Sanders supporters who were voting for Hillary. Some said that had he been nominee they would have been actively campaigning, going door-to-door and encouraging others to vote for him. But they said they just didn't have it in them to do the same for Hillary, especially after all of the DNC shenanigans the previous Spring and Summer.

Biden is not a candidate who's ever really aroused a ton of enthusiasm. He was a great veep, but look at all his failed runs for prez. People need to be careful not to assume Obama's popularity will carry over to Biden. Gore assumed he could just ride into the white house on Clinton's high approval ratings.

Thanks for articulating this; this is precisely my understanding and the source of my concern with Biden, which is independent from the fact that I don't think he would do enough if he did win the office. Those are two separate things... the fact that I don't favor him as a candidate, and the fact that I think his electability has been vastly overstated.

By contrast, lots of people are enthusiastic for Buttigieg (also a more moderate candidate), and he's not going to have the same baggage as Biden if he can manage to win the nomination. Buttigieg is a much better choice.

 

[Jaguar]

The president on Friday said he ordered a federal review of water efficiency standards in bathroom fixtures and complained that “people are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times as opposed to once” in homes with low-flow appliances.

 

[anticlimatic]

The president on Friday said he ordered a federal review of water efficiency standards in bathroom fixtures and complained that "people are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times as opposed to once" in homes with low-flow appliances.

If he talked more about how companies are required to throttle water pressure in showerheads and sink faucets he would have more of a point. That shit is beyond annoying.

 

[Jaguar]

Perhaps we can start a national Fuck Up A Farmer Day.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

There's a phenomenon in psychology called parasocial interaction: "...a kind of psychological relationship experienced by an audience in their mediated encounters with performers in the mass media, particularly on television. Viewers or listeners come to consider media personalities as friends, despite having limited interactions with them. PSI is described as an illusionary experience, such that media audiences interact with personas (e.g., talk show host, celebrities, fictional characters, social media influencers) as if they are engaged in a reciprocal relationship with them." This can lead to people feeling conviction that they 'know' someone they do not know, and explains how a strong feeling of trust can be cultivated on an illusion.

Authentic vulnerability - the kind that engenders strong trust, so strong that a person doesn't begin to recognize the confirmation bias at play in their perception - comes from repeated exposure and shared experience. And Trump has the extra edge of coming across as authentic because of his consistent hyperbolic exaggeration and bold-faced lying, so the potential for 'shared experience' is especially strong. His dishonesty probably amplifies the feeling of 'shared experience'. (Honest Liars: Dishonest Leaders May Be Perceived as Authentic). The fact that it's a parasocial interaction makes it an illusion, but it feels real. I think a lot of people just 'know' he didn't do anything wrong and they've lost the capacity to evaluate how damning the evidence would be for anyone else (i.e. to see it objectively, because the emotional connection/relationship is so strong).

I read a rather long article lately saying this more in depth, but I can't remember where I read it. One woman in a public poll answered - when asked if Trump would lose her support for shooting someone on 5th Avenue - that she'd assume the person did something to deserve it. I don't see how anyone can claim, at the very least, that there isn't a bizarre amount of this parasocial interaction misplaced trust (based on illusion) going on. (Unless they're enmeshed in it too).

I'm not saying this is - without any doubt - why every single level-headed person who doesn't see 'clear' evidence of Trump's guilt doesn't see the evidence in the same way (and I will add that "level-headed" Trump supporters regarding this impeachment do happen, although they are imo far, far and few between). Where perception is concerned, I don't like to lay down absolute definitives as if I personally (and everyone with the same opinions) have the single only magic key to perceiving reality. But I can't help but feel a relatively strong "probably" about it. What's going on is truly stunning. I have only met one person who comes across as very level-headed and still doesn't see the evidence as damning. If they don't have the parasocial interaction misplaced trust thing going on, then I think any mob boss would be insanely lucky to have these people in their jury.

I found the op ed piece. A Theory for Why Trump’s Base Won’t Budge.

 

[ceecee]

I found the op ed piece. A Theory for Why Trump’s Base Won’t Budge.

I think this is accurate. Nothing can puncture the bubble. Anything critical is fake news, plus many never acknowledge watching or hearing news at all. No faults, never made a mistake, not responsible for anything. And anyone who's ever dealt with this kind of narcissism can certainly identify it instantly.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

For 8 years Saint Obama could do no wrong and his minions stayed in lock step allegiance to him, even as he organizing coups around the world, killing innocents at weddings and birthdays, screwing up health care, assassinating American citizens, jailing journalists, giving billions to cronies, spying on Congress, and giving free passes to Wall Street crooks, among other things.

Now they project their own bubble onto their opponents. What a silly world we live in.

 

[Swivelinglight]

what does Obama have to do with this thread lmfao