1 hour ago, The Norseman said:

I honestly think Trump killed the traditional GOP, and I'm not so sure that's a bad thing.  At the risk of saying anything positive about Trump (I know that's not allowed here)...I think the Republican party that will come out of his presidency is much better poised for the future.  More diverse, more domestically focused, more economically mixed, anti foreign war, more socially tolerant...etc, etc.  If they can just be more open to environmental issues (without fully embracing the climate change hysteria) and a few other topics that are important to moderates I think they have a winning ticket.  

I assume you're talking about Trump's gains among black men, but that has nothing to do with the GOP (it was also minimal in the grand scheme of things).  That's specifically about Trump the personality.  It's the greed/materialism that Trump does and for decades has represented and it specifically ties into rap culture.  It'll be essentially impossible to repeat, even with someone from the Trump orbit.  I mean, they can put up another rich guy (Romney was certainly rich and he didn't make the same inroads), but they won't have decades of being the face of greed.  That's a Trump-specific trait.

As for the rest: more domestically focused, more economically mixed, anti foreign war, more socially tolerant.  They may keep the domestically focussed (nationalist) and economically mixed (socialist) parts, but I wouldn't bet on it.  Most of the GOP are naturally conservative globalists.  They could go with someone from Team Trump that's a nationalist/socialist like he is, but eventually the conservatives will start to leave in greater numbers.  They already left in pretty large numbers in this last election and at some point, the extremes are going to meet on the other side, and the GOP will become the party of the far right/far left and the Dems will be the party of the moderate right and left.  I don't think that's a space the GOP wants to live in.

Trump never was anti-foreign war (he ordered more drone strikes than Obama's first term and sent more troops to the ME).  And I don't even know what you're talking about with more socially tolerant.  Trump governed like a fiscal liberal and social conservative and sent 3 socially conservative judges to the SC.  That seems like opposite of socially tolerant, unless you have some other definition of social tolerance.

6 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

politicians will use whatever they can to divide a nation if it suites them. if it's not racism it'll be something else.

as the country has gotten less racist, the tool used to divide has been the culture war and rural/urban divide. where once someone could appeal to "the whites" and win, that has proven to be a losing political strategy (at least when done overtly), now the political parties have moved on to something else.

so Trump convinced the rural folk that ivory tower liberals / coastal elites hate their guts, and they believed that he would be helping them.

that he hasn't is immaterial - Trump can always fall back to the "I tried, but the swamp/liberals/etc. are stopping me! you need to send me more money and vote harder!"

Trump was overt though, no? And he won. Got close enough to winning a second time. 

And yes, politicians will use whatever they can to keep us pointing the finger at each other instead of them. 

17 hours ago, Mike31mt said:

Trump was trying to prevent an al out panic while the Dems were inciting fear

Just now, Lloyd said:

Trump was overt though, no? And he won. Got close enough to winning a second time. 

And yes, politicians will use whatever they can to keep us pointing the finger at each other instead of them. 

the dog whistling might seem overt, but it's not.

and there are plenty of minorities who don't buy into the "my race is my identity" thing. which is actually a good thing. but it will mean that some will do the mental calculus and decide they like the strong, punchy guy who talks tough on this and that. that is appealing to a certain segment of the population regardless of whatever identity cooked up - racial, ethnic, gender, etc.

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

the dog whistling might seem overt, but it's not.

and there are plenty of minorities who don't buy into the "my race is my identity" thing. which is actually a good thing. but it will mean that some will do the mental calculus and decide they like the strong, punchy guy who talks tough on this and that. that is appealing to a certain segment of the population regardless of whatever identity cooked up - racial, ethnic, gender, etc.

Definitely.  I remember you (or someone) mentioned the various minority groups who voted in increasing numbers for Trump. But I wonder if that was a Trump-specific thing, or a GOP thing. Trump has some form of celebrity appeal with people thinking he's rich, and him spending 70 years hyping up his own name. Not sure the average candidate can replicate that cult of personality thing. 

12 minutes ago, Lloyd said:

Definitely.  I remember you (or someone) mentioned the various minority groups who voted in increasing numbers for Trump. But I wonder if that was a Trump-specific thing, or a GOP thing. Trump has some form of celebrity appeal with people thinking he's rich, and him spending 70 years hyping up his own name. Not sure the average candidate can replicate that cult of personality thing. 

They can't.  And that trait is a Catch-22 for the GOP anyway.  If you put up the same kind of rude, outrageous greed monster, any gains you make with minorities is outweighed by the losses you take in the suburbs.

16 minutes ago, Lloyd said:

Definitely.  I remember you (or someone) mentioned the various minority groups who voted in increasing numbers for Trump. But I wonder if that was a Trump-specific thing, or a GOP thing. Trump has some form of celebrity appeal with people thinking he's rich, and him spending 70 years hyping up his own name. Not sure the average candidate can replicate that cult of personality thing. 

I think it's a bit early to try and figure that out. for certain there will be a lot of study of that from this election.

it could be that some are scared off by #DefundThePolice and/or "the socialisms"

it could be that Trump "the strong man" specifically appealed to a segment of these minorities.

for Latinos specifically, it could be that many who legally immigrated are on board with Trump's firmer stance against illegal immigration. keep in mind many are probably of Mexican descent, whereas there are a good number of crossers from other Central American countries - and Mexico itself has its own southern border issues with Guatemala.

it could be that young black men, who did see their job prospects improve over the last four years, were open to the arguments from Trump that he had "done the most" for black Americans of any president since, perhaps, Lincoln.

there are a lot of ways this could be interpreted, and probably all of the above (and more) are correct, but what will be interesting to determine (if we can) is which are the biggest movers and which are marginal. 

53 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

I assume you're talking about Trump's gains among black men, but that has nothing to do with the GOP (it was also minimal in the grand scheme of things).  That's specifically about Trump the personality.  It's the greed/materialism that Trump does and for decades has represented and it specifically ties into rap culture.  It'll be essentially impossible to repeat, even with someone from the Trump orbit.  I mean, they can put up another rich guy (Romney was certainly rich and he didn't make the same inroads), but they won't have decades of being the face of greed.  That's a Trump-specific trait.

As for the rest: more domestically focused, more economically mixed, anti foreign war, more socially tolerant.  They may keep the domestically focussed (nationalist) and economically mixed (socialist) parts, but I wouldn't bet on it.  Most of the GOP are naturally conservative globalists.  They could go with someone from Team Trump that's a nationalist/socialist like he is, but eventually the conservatives will start to leave in greater numbers.  They already left in pretty large numbers in this last election and at some point, the extremes are going to meet on the other side, and the GOP will become the party of the far right/far left and the Dems will be the party of the moderate right and left.  I don't think that's a space the GOP wants to live in.

Trump never was anti-foreign war (he ordered more drone strikes than Obama's first term and sent more troops to the ME).  And I don't even know what you're talking about with more socially tolerant.  Trump governed like a fiscal liberal and social conservative and sent 3 socially conservative judges to the SC.  That seems like opposite of socially tolerant, unless you have some other definition of social tolerance.

I really don't want to get into anymore Trump good vs. Trump bad discussion so I'm going to not engage there.  Its over, Trump lost, I'm over it.  To be clear though, I'm not talking about Trump's votes from the black community....although I am encouraged to see some in the Black community opening their minds to other options.

I'm talking more about the Republican faces that we saw at the RNC.  It was not the traditional crowd...instead it was a far more diverse group that seemed to care more about real world solutions as opposed to pie in the sky ideas.  

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I'd like that to be the case, but I think a lot of Trump's appeal was "sticking it to the liberals", at least on the fringes.

I agree that in some areas the GOP has made inroads: younger black men & Cuban-latinos at minimum are more open to the GOP. broadly, I think Latinos in Texas especially seemed less engaged - they don't appear (though I haven't dug into numbers as they've gotten bigger) to have come out for Trump, but they also didn't really turn out for Biden in big numbers. Democrats were worried about that even going into the election; engagement among latinos along the Texas border was not as high as they were hoping, and turnout was depressed election day.

the left has this delusion that minorities are themselves immune to holding racist views or at least do not find "racism" to be central to their identity, and find themselves shocked when latinos and young black men "vote against their interests" ... that's a problem that the left has, but I don't believe that translates to the right being more socially tolerant, I don't know. I think it will be a trick for the GOP to go from a guy who winked-and-nodded at white nationalist groups to selling itself as socially tolerant. I think there's a chance, but the GOP has to re-invent itself there in some fashion. I do hope they do it so that I can vote for a healthy GOP again, we'll see what happens; the way some big names on the right are positioning themselves in the aftermath (especially Cruz) do not bode well. they're already trying on Trump's persona. I just hope it doesn't work.

I do think, as I've said repeatedly, that Trump did a fine job diagnosing some of the problems we have in terms of offshoring and making sure we map out an economic future for people without college degrees. this is something that has caused me angst for quite a while. Trump's solutions, however, were reckless and foolish, and I fear they've taken us back not forwards in terms of ensuring a place for skilled and unskilled labor. 

we should have stayed in the TPP. we should have done everything we can to gain more leverage against China and other partners. we should be pushing for fair trade policies that both serve to lift up the working conditions of those abroad as well as serve an interest here at home - to ensure that our workers can compete on more equal footing. Trump did none of this, instead engaging us in a trade war that has cost Americans both in jobs and in higher costs of consumer goods. 

he was a very poor negotiator. 

I just hope to see both parties come out of this marginalizing the fringes and fighting for the centrist/moderate voter again. stop trying to paint the left as socialists and the right as fascists; the bell curve is still well and alive, and most of us are not on the edges, even if the bell curve has been skewed a bit by social media. I'm hopeful that when people learn to deal with the onslaught of information (and misinformation), that the full normalized curve returns in force and the extremists are relegated to rants on parler/etc.

I agree with some of this, but if you think of where the right was 10 years ago they have come a long way.  Back then, the party was almost exclusively white, rural, christian and/or wealthy.  It was the party of big business, it was the party of military, it was the party of religion.  The party publicly opposed abortion, gay marriage, and they were relatively intolerant of many other minority issues. 

I honestly don't know how much influence Trump had over much of this, but under his tenure there has been a shift.  Granted, in some areas...like the black community it only started to take hold.  Where in others, like the rural white communities it became a religion.  Those that voted Republican in this last election were far from just the bible thumping Christians and business elites that would have voted red in the past. 

In fact, one could argue that big business has shifted to the left with the dominance of big tech on the west coast and that much of the wealthy vote has as well.  I mean, pre Trump the Democrats were still known as the working class party.  Can you honestly saw that now? 

I'm really interested in the changes that both parties have gone through over the last 4-6 years and how they will evolve from here.  

40 minutes ago, Lloyd said:

Definitely.  I remember you (or someone) mentioned the various minority groups who voted in increasing numbers for Trump. But I wonder if that was a Trump-specific thing, or a GOP thing. Trump has some form of celebrity appeal with people thinking he's rich, and him spending 70 years hyping up his own name. Not sure the average candidate can replicate that cult of personality thing. 

Yeah, looks as if he received the majority of the "Cuban vote" in South Florida....it's the only logical guess as to how Trump won Florida by 400k votes, imo.  Should have been much closer in Florida, imo. 

Just now, Ace Nova said:

Yeah, looks as if he received the majority of the "Cuban vote" in South Florida....it's the only logical guess as to how Trump won Florida by 400k votes, imo.  Should have been much closer in Florida, imo. 

He also did surprisingly well with seniors despite his best efforts to end all their lives prematurely. 

14 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

I agree with some of this, but if you think of where the right was 10 years ago they have come a long way.  Back then, the party was almost exclusively white, rural, christian and/or wealthy.  It was the party of big business, it was the party of military, it was the party of religion.  The party publicly opposed abortion, gay marriage, and they were relatively intolerant of many other minority issues. 

I honestly don't know how much influence Trump had over much of this, but under his tenure there has been a shift.  Granted, in some areas...like the black community it only started to take hold.  Where in others, like the rural white communities it became a religion.  Those that voted Republican in this last election were far from just the bible thumping Christians and business elites that would have voted red in the past. 

In fact, one could argue that big business has shifted to the left with the dominance of big tech on the west coast and that much of the wealthy vote has as well.  I mean, pre Trump the Democrats were still known as the working class party.  Can you honestly saw that now? 

I'm really interested in the changes that both parties have gone through over the last 4-6 years and how they will evolve from here.  

I think it has been and continues to be the exact same dynamic, but that Trump exacerbated that dynamic.  It's city vs. rural.  That's the whole divide.  The Dems are most certainly the working class party, but the working class in the city.  And the GOP are the party of the rich, but only the rich that live in rural areas (which there are plenty).

1 hour ago, VanHammersly said:

I assume you're talking about Trump's gains among black men, but that has nothing to do with the GOP (it was also minimal in the grand scheme of things).  That's specifically about Trump the personality.  It's the greed/materialism that Trump does and for decades has represented and it specifically ties into rap culture.  It'll be essentially impossible to repeat, even with someone from the Trump orbit.  I mean, they can put up another rich guy (Romney was certainly rich and he didn't make the same inroads), but they won't have decades of being the face of greed.  That's a Trump-specific trait.

As for the rest: more domestically focused, more economically mixed, anti foreign war, more socially tolerant.  They may keep the domestically focussed (nationalist) and economically mixed (socialist) parts, but I wouldn't bet on it.  Most of the GOP are naturally conservative globalists.  They could go with someone from Team Trump that's a nationalist/socialist like he is, but eventually the conservatives will start to leave in greater numbers.  They already left in pretty large numbers in this last election and at some point, the extremes are going to meet on the other side, and the GOP will become the party of the far right/far left and the Dems will be the party of the moderate right and left.  I don't think that's a space the GOP wants to live in.

Trump never was anti-foreign war (he ordered more drone strikes than Obama's first term and sent more troops to the ME).  And I don't even know what you're talking about with more socially tolerant.  Trump governed like a fiscal liberal and social conservative and sent 3 socially conservative judges to the SC.  That seems like opposite of socially tolerant, unless you have some other definition of social tolerance.

Exactly - Trump is a version of a rap video with a big guy wearing flashy jewelry, riding a luxury car, and throwing money around with women hanging off of him. Trump's the big bad bully - and that played into a certain mind set.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

He also did surprisingly well with seniors despite his best efforts to end all their lives prematurely. 

I believe that.  I have extended family members who though it would be "the end of the world" if Biden won.  And these are folks that may have been conservative but weren't necessarily "hardcore" Trump supporters either.  My theory is that the extended media coverage that the riots/protests had on right-wing media sites really swayed their opinion.  Leads back to "The Social Dilemma" theory on how these sites tend to sway opinions, etc. 

11 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

I think it has been and continues to be the exact same dynamic, but that Trump exacerbated that dynamic.  It's city vs. rural.  That's the whole divide.  The Dems are most certainly the working class party, but the working class in the city.  And the GOP are the party of the rich, but only the rich that live in rural areas (which there are plenty).

Your point on urban vs. rural is well taken, the voting maps clearly show that.  But you can't ignore that big business has clearly (and very publicly) shifted left.  Urban and suburban wealthy people have too.  I don't think you can call one party or the other the party of the working class anymore.

11 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Your point on urban vs. rural is well taken, the voting maps clearly show that.  But you can't ignore that big business has clearly (and very publicly) shifted left.  Urban and suburban wealthy people have too.  I don't think you can call one party or the other the party of the working class anymore.

In the age of globalism, big business has to appeal to people far outside of the US left vs. right dichotomy, so, sure their marketing strategies have grown to target people all over the whole world, which makes them seem more closely aligned to the US left than it is to the right.  But as far as who they're donating to and actually supporting?  Whoever gives them the biggest tax break, a stronger market for their shareholders, less regulatory oversight, etc.  They could care less about the any culture wars.  They just want to profit off of them.

1 hour ago, VanHammersly said:

In the age of globalism, big business has to appeal to people far outside of the US left vs. right dichotomy, so, sure their marketing strategies have grown to target people all over the whole world, which makes them seem more closely aligned to the US left than it is to the right.  But as far as who they're donating to and actually supporting?  Whoever gives them the biggest tax break, a stronger market for their shareholders, less regulatory oversight, etc.  They could care less about the any culture wars.  They just want to profit off of them.

Don't agree.  The most vocal leaders in big business used to be companies like GE and Wal Mart.  Now its companies like Amazon and Facebook.  The demographic of their leadership and their locations have fundamentally changed.  As long as silicon valley and the tech sector continue to grow, big business will move more and more to the left. 

Interesting discussion. Some thoughts after scanning through:

@The Norseman: I don't think Trump moved the GOP as much as you do, especially on social issues. Look at his three SCOTUS picks. People now think Roe v. Wade may be overturned if a case reaches the Supreme Court. This is the statement I am talking about:

Quote

I agree with some of this, but if you think of where the right was 10 years ago they have come a long way.  Back then, the party was almost exclusively white, rural, christian and/or wealthy.  It was the party of big business, it was the party of military, it was the party of religion.  The party publicly opposed abortion, gay marriage, and they were relatively intolerant of many other minority issues.

As I look at it, the party is still vehemently opposed to abortion and gay marriage, maybe even more so. Abortion laws in many states have become more restrictive, and I really can't think of anything Trump did on Gay marriage. The party remains white, rural and Christian.

Where I agree with you is that Trump did change the party's socio-economic appeal, bringing in white working class voters who feel screwed over by globalization and alienated from a Democratic Party that is waaaaaaaaaaaaay too focused on identity politics. Trump gave a voice to the non-college educated, white working class voters who have seen 30+ years of outsourcing take away their livelihood. Bill Clinton felt their pain, but Donald Trump reflected their rage. His supporters love him because they view him as an avatar for their anger, fear and grievances. 

However, because Trump is incompetent and a con man, he had neither the ability nor the desire to actually do anything for these people. He spent 4+ years getting them to blame "others" (Democrats, China, immigrants, etc.) but his actual policies were abject failures. The USMCA is just NAFTA with a new name. His trade policies with China have caused a massive tax increase on US consumers and no real benefit to US exporters. His success was that he paid attention to and reflected their justifiable anger, just as the Democrats were ignoring them and taking them for granted. It is almost like they just wanted someone to listen and speak to them, and he tapped into that. 

@VanHammersly and @JohnSnowsHair: Biden needs to speak to these people, and has to tell them the hard truth. The manufacturing jobs aren't coming back in a global economy where labor is cheaper overseas. The anomaly was post war America, where unskilled labor allowed for a good middle class lifestyle. Biden needs to connect with these people, go back to Clinton's "I feel your pain" message, which he was able to do during the campaign. And Joe needs to dump the fringe left wing of his party. A GOP Senate (as I believe @The Norseman) pointed out would be a gift to him here -- it gives him an excuse for why he needs to take more moderate steps. 

My one takeaway: We need to do away with the primary system which allows the fringes to dominate. If you're a GOP Congressman, your district is likely safely Republican. The threat to your seat isn't coming from Democrats, but from the right in a primary. Same for Democrats in liberal districts. Anyone who is moderate or works with the other side immediately gets a primary challenge from the extreme. That needs to be changed in order for the government to function.

39 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

My one takeaway: We need to do away with the primary system which allows the fringes to dominate. If you're a GOP Congressman, your district is likely safely Republican. The threat to your seat isn't coming from Democrats, but from the right in a primary. Same for Democrats in liberal districts. Anyone who is moderate or works with the other side immediately gets a primary challenge from the extreme. That needs to be changed in order for the government to function.

So, what's the solution here?  A Georgia-style jungle primary, where the top two vote getters go to a run-off regardless of party?  Because here that really hasn't deterred extremism.

31 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Interesting discussion. Some thoughts after scanning through:

@The Norseman: I don't think Trump moved the GOP as much as you do, especially on social issues. Look at his three SCOTUS picks. People now think Roe v. Wade may be overturned if a case reaches the Supreme Court. This is the statement I am talking about:

As I look at it, the party is still vehemently opposed to abortion and gay marriage, maybe even more so. Abortion laws in many states have become more restrictive, and I really can't think of anything Trump did on Gay marriage. The party remains white, rural and Christian.

Where I agree with you is that Trump did change the party's socio-economic appeal, bringing in white working class voters who feel screwed over by globalization and alienated from a Democratic Party that is waaaaaaaaaaaaay too focused on identity politics. Trump gave a voice to the non-college educated, white working class voters who have seen 30+ years of outsourcing take away their livelihood. Bill Clinton felt their pain, but Donald Trump reflected their rage. His supporters love him because they view him as an avatar for their anger, fear and grievances. 

However, because Trump is incompetent and a con man, he had neither the ability nor the desire to actually do anything for these people. He spent 4+ years getting them to blame "others" (Democrats, China, immigrants, etc.) but his actual policies were abject failures. The USMCA is just NAFTA with a new name. His trade policies with China have caused a massive tax increase on US consumers and no real benefit to US exporters. His success was that he paid attention to and reflected their justifiable anger, just as the Democrats were ignoring them and taking them for granted. It is almost like they just wanted someone to listen and speak to them, and he tapped into that. 

@VanHammersly and @JohnSnowsHair: Biden needs to speak to these people, and has to tell them the hard truth. The manufacturing jobs aren't coming back in a global economy where labor is cheaper overseas. The anomaly was post war America, where unskilled labor allowed for a good middle class lifestyle. Biden needs to connect with these people, go back to Clinton's "I feel your pain" message, which he was able to do during the campaign. And Joe needs to dump the fringe left wing of his party. A GOP Senate (as I believe @The Norseman) pointed out would be a gift to him here -- it gives him an excuse for why he needs to take more moderate steps. 

My one takeaway: We need to do away with the primary system which allows the fringes to dominate. If you're a GOP Congressman, your district is likely safely Republican. The threat to your seat isn't coming from Democrats, but from the right in a primary. Same for Democrats in liberal districts. Anyone who is moderate or works with the other side immediately gets a primary challenge from the extreme. That needs to be changed in order for the government to function.

Good post. I'll also add that Trump was no ally in the way of LGBT rights. He started with a moderate tone on those issues, but realized that opposing equal rights for gay and trans people was popular with his base and thus better for him personally. This was why he banned trans persons in the military.

4 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

So, what's the solution here?  A Georgia-style jungle primary, where the top two vote getters go to a run-off regardless of party?  Because here that really hasn't deterred extremism.

It will never happen, but I'd go back to letting the party pick the candidates. No more primaries -- the party puts forward a nominee. 

Are the Trump lovers done being sheep yet?

4 minutes ago, Jenkins27 said:

Are the Trump lovers done being sheep yet?

That belongs in the Cheeto thread - this thread is for discussing all things Joe, like his penchant for caressing underage girls and sniffing their hair.  And how he's about to heal the country.

^^ Uh oh - somebody is triggered by criticism of their dear leader!