• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oct 28, 2017
4,970
"Don't take the President seriously when he says he's going to become king!"

Man fuck these people, HE'S FUCKING PRESIDENT.

The thing is that Trump can't actually cancel elections so it's a meaningless Tweet.

What it does, though, is put Republicans in a big bind because Trump is all about power and control. This Tweet is nothing but projection, that he thinks he can't beat Brain Dead Sleepy Joe Biden.

It looks like Republicans got what they mostly wanted in judges and tax cuts, they don't want to be standing when the economy really falls through the floor so they're not going to directly support Trump delaying the election.
 

DanGo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,763
It looks like Republicans got what they mostly wanted in judges and tax cuts, they don't want to be standing when the economy really falls through the floor so they're not going to directly support Trump delaying the election.
There's nothing to be gained in supporting an election delay because it could never be implemented without agreement from Democrats, the general public doesn't want it, and supporting such a thing might hurt their own turnout. It's not some conspiracy to ensure it's a Democratic president holding a worse economy.
 

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
He literally attached a Tweet thread that states it is done by the Manifesto Project, which analyzed 1,000 keywords across major party platforms since 1945. The major takeaway is that the American electoral system and the reactionary nature of the Republican Party have produced greater problems in enacting the party platform compared to systems better able to accommodate sweeping changes in shorter time periods.
Yeah, seems to me the problem isn't the Democratic Party's position relative to the rest of the world, but rather the combined factors that the Republican Party is extremely far-right relative to the rest of the world, and also systemic bias that enables regressive/stagnant policy. (lol that basically just summed up what you said, oh well)

Think of it this way - Obama's party won the popular vote in 2012. Due to gerrymandering, they were unable to win the House majority despite this. Had they done so, they could have at the very least enacted comprehensive immigration reform and ENDA (nondiscrimination against LGBT people in the workplace, which the Supreme Court basically enacted last month - noteworthy that the Dem party platform has basically upgraded this position to the Equality Act which covers a much broader spectrum of issues), as these are both things that passed the Senate majority with token Republican support and would have passed even the barest House majorities. However, Obama also floated a number of other policies for his second term that were never given the chance due to this and that reason - the American Jobs Act (extra stimulus) and comprehensive background checks for gun purchases/assault weapons ban both failed to beat filibusters. Abolishing that alongside controlling the House would have allowed all of those bills to pass, alongside a public option for healthcare, free community college, universal pre-K and an increase in the minimum wage, all of which were things Obama proposed and re-proposed throughout his second term, and things we still don't have.

Poll after poll suggested these proposals had popular support as well, but gerrymandering, disproportionate Senate control/the filibuster, and finally the Electoral College bias made all of this impossible. Additionally, our state governments being gerrymandered also made it impossible to implement any of this stuff meaningfully at the state level (outside of a handful of safe blue havens), while also compromising things like the Medicaid expansion which Democrats DID achieve but required cooperation from the states.

All this to say, we've had about a lost decade or so of progressive policy gain and ignorance/naivete has led people to assume "the Democrats don't want to do anything" rather than acknowledging the systemic issues and problems inherent in the Republican Party that have kneecapped our ability to capably govern.
 

BWoog

Member
Oct 27, 2017
38,488
I wonder if the GOP had won the House, would they have voted to delay the election? Maybe there would have been enough to vote against it but man it's scary to think about.
 
Oct 28, 2017
4,970
There's nothing to be gained in supporting an election delay because it could never be implemented without agreement from Democrats, the general public doesn't want it, and supporting such a thing might hurt their own turnout. It's not some conspiracy to ensure it's a Democratic president holding a worse economy.

Yeah absolutely not. There's nothing positive about Trump wanting to delay the election and it's not going to happen anyway.

The point I was making was that there's no reason for Republicans to support delaying the election even if they actually had the option to do so. That's the reason why there isn't really anyone backing Trump on that matter.
 

patientzero

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,729
Yeah, seems to me the problem isn't the Democratic Party's position relative to the rest of the world, but rather the combined factors that the Republican Party is extremely far-right relative to the rest of the world, and also systemic bias that enables regressive/stagnant policy. (lol that basically just summed up what you said, oh well)

Think of it this way - Obama's party won the popular vote in 2012. Due to gerrymandering, they were unable to win the House majority despite this. Had they done so, they could have at the very least enacted comprehensive immigration reform and ENDA (nondiscrimination against LGBT people in the workplace, which the Supreme Court basically enacted last month - noteworthy that the Dem party platform has basically upgraded this position to the Equality Act which covers a much broader spectrum of issues), as these are both things that passed the Senate majority with token Republican support and would have passed even the barest House majorities. However, Obama also floated a number of other policies for his second term that were never given the chance due to this and that reason - the American Jobs Act (extra stimulus) and comprehensive background checks for gun purchases/assault weapons ban both failed to beat filibusters. Abolishing that alongside controlling the House would have allowed all of those bills to pass, alongside a public option for healthcare, free community college, universal pre-K and an increase in the minimum wage, all of which were things Obama proposed and re-proposed throughout his second term, and things we still don't have.

Poll after poll suggested these proposals had popular support as well, but gerrymandering, disproportionate Senate control/the filibuster, and finally the Electoral College bias made all of this impossible. Additionally, our state governments being gerrymandered also made it impossible to implement any of this stuff meaningfully at the state level (outside of a handful of safe blue havens), while also compromising things like the Medicaid expansion which Democrats DID achieve but required cooperation from the states.

All this to say, we've had about a lost decade or so of progressive policy gain and ignorance/naivete has led people to assume "the Democrats don't want to do anything" rather than acknowledging the systemic issues and problems inherent in the Republican Party that have kneecapped our ability to capably govern.

Spot on!

And no worries on restating anything I said. Hell, I'm writing a literature review right now, which is doing so professionally!
 

fontguy

Avenger
Oct 8, 2018
16,197
The source is attributed at the bottom of the Twitter thread. The diagram comes from the Manifesto Project:

Manifesto Project Database


This data doesn't seem like a great way to gauge a party's messaging (which would even then, I think, be an insufficient measure of a party's real beliefs and priorities).

Look at how it categorizes occurrences of words and phrases within a document:


Am I stupid (and I admit that's a distinct possibility) or does it just kinda take everything at face value? I'm not seeing anything in here that would link a dog whistle to its actual, intended meaning in the context of the time in which it was said. For example, "All Lives Matter" wouldn't register as racist in this analysis, even though we all know the intent when a Republican senator says it.

It's not nothing, but this data doesn't account for things like floor votes or other real world actions. Just what the parties, purely at surface level, say they want.

This seems especially significant in the context of this particular conversation since the Democratic Party's actual commitment to stated beliefs and positions is often a big point of criticism from the left.

He literally attached a Tweet thread that states it is done by the Manifesto Project, which analyzed 1,000 keywords across major party platforms since 1945. The major takeaway is that the American electoral system and the reactionary nature of the Republican Party have produced greater problems in enacting the party platform compared to systems better able to accommodate sweeping changes in shorter time periods.

I did not see that it was part of a thread. When I clicked on it, it only showed the one tweet in isolation.
 

Diablos

has a title.
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,646
Republican leaders like McConnell, vulnerable candidates like McSally and Collins, and now even the Federalist Society founder are refusing to follow along with this. This seems like a bridge too far for quite a few.
Eh. The way I see it: They used Trump for as long as they needed to. Removing him from office now right before the election and replacing him with Pence or pretty much any establishment GOPer is a huge boost to Republicans in the fall. They know this.

this dude from the federalist society isn't THAT dumb. I refuse to believe so. Trump has done a lot of other fascist, impeachable things over the course of his term. He knows.
 

Plinko

Member
Oct 28, 2017
18,616
That news about the DHS isn't surprising in the least but that doesn't make it any less wrong. That's what authoritarian governments do.

 

Deleted member 31817

Nov 7, 2017
30,876
Eh. The way I see it: They used Trump for as long as they needed to. Removing him from office now right before the election and replacing him with Pence or pretty much any establishment GOPer is a huge boost to Republicans in the fall. They know this.

this dude from the federalist society isn't THAT dumb. I refuse to believe so. Trump has done a lot of other fascist, impeachable things over the course of his term. He knows.
Yup.
 
OP
OP
TheHunter

TheHunter

Bold Bur3n Wrangler
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
25,774
Eh. The way I see it: They used Trump for as long as they needed to. Removing him from office now right before the election and replacing him with Pence or pretty much any establishment GOPer is a huge boost to Republicans in the fall. They know this.

this dude from the federalist society isn't THAT dumb. I refuse to believe so. Trump has done a lot of other fascist, impeachable things over the course of his term. He knows.
Replacing Trump now would hurt them more.
 

Plinko

Member
Oct 28, 2017
18,616
Trump leaving and being replaced by Pence would be a complete disaster for republicans. He'd be a massive lame duck and the draw to come vote for the Trump cultists would be gone.
 
Oct 26, 2017
12,125
Eh. The way I see it: They used Trump for as long as they needed to. Removing him from office now right before the election and replacing him with Pence or pretty much any establishment GOPer is a huge boost to Republicans in the fall. They know this.

this dude from the federalist society isn't THAT dumb. I refuse to believe so. Trump has done a lot of other fascist, impeachable things over the course of his term. He knows.
im not sold it'll be a huge boost.
the ALWAYS trumpers crowd would be depressed, and would likely not even vote.

now the question is, how large, really, is the always trumpers crowd.
 
Eh. The way I see it: They used Trump for as long as they needed to. Removing him from office now right before the election and replacing him with Pence or pretty much any establishment GOPer is a huge boost to Republicans in the fall. They know this.
Removing Trump at this point would provoke a civil war within the base and set the party up for obliteration.
 

SwordsmanofS

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,451


EeN6jyDWkAAB3Vl
 

less

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,861

Ithil

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,436
This is actually one of the things that appeals to a lot of voters. People don't want to have to be constantly worried about a president's actions day after day whether they be through tv or through twitter. Biden is promising a return to a time when they can shut politics out of their daily schedule.
One of the biggest reasons I think the margins across the board are going to be closer than they have in a very long time, decades probably. Trump will win red states obviously, but I think the margins will be alarmingly slim, for Republicans. States he should be winning by 25 points hovering near single digits, etc.

Even in red states, folks are just tired of hearing about Trump every day of every week.
 

less

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,861
One of the biggest reasons I think the margins across the board are going to be closer than they have in a very long time, decades probably. Trump will win red states obviously, but I think the margins will be alarmingly slim, for Republicans. States he should be winning by 25 points hovering near single digits, etc.

Even in red states, folks are just tired of hearing about Trump every day of every week.

Exactly. And with Biden being a candidate that isn't too "radical" Republicans are more willing than normal to either shit out or cross the isle to vote for Biden.

amp.cnn.com

Trump campaign temporarily halts ad spending for review of messaging strategy

President Donald Trump's campaign has canceled a series of advertisement buys over the next few days as they review their messaging strategy, a senior campaign official told CNN.

That's...odd.

Not particularly. Trump sees the terrible polling and wants something done. Rethinking their strategy makes sense. No point in wasting money if you are going to change course. How well this goes is up in the air but I doubt it'll be too effective because of who Trump is.
 

RolandGunner

Member
Oct 30, 2017
8,542
Not particularly. Trump sees the terrible polling and wants something done. Rethinking their strategy makes sense. No point in wasting money if you are going to change course. How well this goes is up in the air but I doubt it'll be too effective because of who Trump is.

Its something that may make sense for a business but is fucking insane for a campaign At the end of June the Trump and the RNC had over $200M saved up and there's the less than 100 days till the election. There's no reason for a normal campaign to keep anything in the bank after November 3rd but Trump will probably wind up giving it to his kids when they run or something.

So low key we're rooting for Kobach to win the primary.

Not so low key. A liberal super PAC has spent over $4M in ads for Kobach.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.