US PoliERA 2018 |OT6| An Unmitigated Disaster

Status
Not open for further replies.

IggyChooChoo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,451
I had a chance to watch that on a flight recently but chose The Disaster Artist instead. Should I make an effort to see it?
As a fan of Iannucci I can’t say it was all that funny, although it had its moments. I found it morbidly interesting because Soviet history is morbidly interesting. Also it is a Western movie that Putin has banned, so it has that cache going for it.
 

AnotherNils

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,188
I think the answer is legislatively we'd be fucked, but internationally we wouldn't be losing face like we are now.
 

Crepuscular

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
349
Yeah even in 2016 when I thought Hillary would win, I was very worried that a "Smart Trump" would swoop in in 2020 and demolish her and then we'd *REALLY* be in trouble. This year's midterms would have been a disaster for us too in this scenario so who knows what congress looks like at that point.

I'm cheerful.
 

Daria

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,779
The Twilight Zone
His charisma is both a reason he can deflect criticism, but is also a hindrance to him.

Imagine someone who can deflect any negativity and get away with it like Trump, but with the political tactical capabilities of a Mitch McConnell. In fact, don't even imagine this. We'll see this in our lifetimes. Just wait.
paul ryan is pretty close
 

Ogodei

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,256
Coruscant
Yeah even in 2016 when I thought Hillary would win, I was very worried that a "Smart Trump" would swoop in in 2020 and demolish her and then we'd *REALLY* be in trouble. This year's midterms would have been a disaster for us too in this scenario so who knows what congress looks like at that point.

I'm cheerful.
Both are likely true, although I feel like incumbency advantage and GOP overreach would've helped Clinton's re-election. You *know* she would've been impeached by now, and that didn't play too well for the GOP the last time they tried to impeach a Clinton.

But 2018 would've been an unholy disaster. Lose the Dem senators in all the Trump states plus Minnesota and Virginia. Lose some of the few Dem governors remaining aside from Illinois which would've flipped back (New Jersey also reverting the previous year, but Virginia is lost), but Pennsylvania and Minnesota go full-tilt-red.

Only the House would be okay if only because the GOP is nearly maxed out there anyway. GOP +10 in the House maybe.

Edit: as far as smart Trump goes, the issue is that every year that passes makes Trumpism less viable. Trump worked by taking advantage of the distribution of white rural voters for the electoral college in a manner similar to how the GOP is maxed out in the House, but this strategy could only work for so long. After 2020 some of those midwestern states will become less important in the electoral college, while the demographic shift in the Sunbelt continues and the reliable GOP sunbelt states become less reliable. Someone coming back with the same brand of racism, even disguised by kind words, would not find the audience in the places they would need to make a difference.
 
Feb 14, 2018
1,611
But 2018 would've been an unholy disaster. Lose the Dem senators in all the Trump states plus Minnesota and Virginia. Lose some of the few Dem governors remaining aside from Illinois which would've flipped back (New Jersey also reverting the previous year, but Virginia is lost), but Pennsylvania and Minnesota go full-tilt-red.
I don’t see why Virginia would suddenly become unwinnable during a Hillary Clinton Presidency considering Democrats won every statewide race during Obama’s terms.
 

Amibguous Cad

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,564
Here's a little thought exercise for PoliERA.

If Trump was a smarter and more knowledgeable person, would he have been more dangerous?

Or is Trump's current ignorance and border-line dementia more dangerous to the country?
It feels like Trump's obvious incompetence gets him a free pass sometimes that's more dangerous than actual competence. It's like when political campaigns try to set expectations for debates and then W manages to string together four words and we all breathe a sigh of relief. Trump is known to be uncivil, and so he's not held to the same standards of civility as any other politician. He's clearly incompetent, and therefore people genuinely float as an explanation for corrupt behavior that he or his staff simply didn't know what they were doing. He's a foreign policy neophyte, so the press spends months fellating his insubstantial achievements in creating the North Korea summit and lets the story quietly fade when it turns out to be nothing at all. He's obviously corrupt, so everyone who isn't in this thread rolls their eyes anytime ZTE comes up.

Of course, competence plus the ability to seem so incompetent would be even better, but it's a very difficult signal to fake.

It's one reason why I think Avenatti might be worth a second look. Non-politicians aren't held to the same standard as politicians, even when they assume political office. (Arnold self-consciously tried to style himself as a normal politician, and is thus the exception that proves the rule). An actor that breaks many norms will find breaking even more norms an easier task. Avennati, or a similar brash, spotlight-seeking, and kinda assholish celebrity would be the best way to capitalize on this dynamic.
 

Jack Remington

User requested permanent ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,083
It's also possible that President Clinton would be really damn popular right now since she'd be good at the job, and economic conditions would be as good or better.
 

JustinP

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,341
Only 2? She already had one during the campaign
I figure she’d try to be extra careful because of how much the deplorable comment blew up, but republican voters would have been so triggered by a woman president that they would have done some crazy shit she couldn’t resist commenting on.
 

Linkura

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,943

Can't make this shit up.
Full list of traitors per Roll Call:

https://www.rollcall.com/news/polit...s-meet-lavrov-moscow-ahead-trump-putin-summit
GOP lawmakers on the trip with Shelby include Sens. Steve Daines of Montana, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, John Kennedy of Louisiana, Jerry Moran of Kansas and John Thune of South Dakota.

Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, also joined the trip.
 

OléGunner

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,791
Airborne Aquarium
GOP senators being in Russia during 4th July is just astonishing optics lol. I didn't know they made a trip.
Fair enough talk to your enemies etc but this just after Trump was bragging Russia assured him they didn't meddle is eye opening as to the level GOP will kowtow to his bs.

What is the reason for the trip anyway?
 

BWoog

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,035
GOP senators being in Russia during 4th July is just astonishing optics lol. I didn't know they made a trip.
Fair enough talk to your enemies etc but this just after Trump was bragging Russia assured him they didn't meddle is eye opening as to the level GOP will kowtow to his bs.

What is the reason for the trip anyway?
To tell Russia to cut it out with election tampering WINK WINK WINK WINK WINK WINK WINK WINK
 
Oct 26, 2017
12,072
Isnt calling them traitors a bit premature seeing as they havent actually been convicted of any crime?

I thought USA was all about innocent until proven guilty?
tell that to the police shooting minorities.

Were a country where your guilty until you can prove your innocent.

So, the GoP in russia on July 4th are traitors.

they have to prove they aren't.


to add to it, your guilty if your poor or blue collar, you have to prove your innocence.
If your rich, or white collar your innocent until your found guilty.
 

Abstrusity

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,656
Isnt calling them traitors a bit premature seeing as they havent actually been convicted of any crime?

I thought USA was all about innocent until proven guilty?
Cute.

But the USA is all about saying innocent until proven guilty but privately labeling people guilty before they stand trial, and that bias poisoning everything around it.

Some people would rather a thousand guilty men to go free than to punish one innocent one. I believe that to be naive.
 

MMaRsu

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,716
Cute.

But the USA is all about saying innocent until proven guilty but privately labeling people guilty before they stand trial, and that bias poisoning everything around it.

Some people would rather a thousand guilty men to go free than to punish one innocent one. I believe that to be naive.
Ok yeah so they are traitors 100%. I get it, you have too many preconceived notions. By the way I do think they have conflicted interests, so they could be guilty of treason,I dont know.

Bit strange to label them as guaranteed traitors for just being in Russia on the 4th of July.
 

Linkura

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,943
So at work, the default home page is msn. One of the top stories is, "If Barrett is nominated, will Dems again target her faith?"

What a disingenuous, bullshit headline.
 

shadow_shogun

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,464
Status
Not open for further replies.