Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Exclusive: Trump chooses pro wrestling magnate Linda McMahon to head SBA
Two members of our goverment's highest administration will have been in a Wrestlemania main event and kicked Vince Mc Mahon in the nuts for money
Lawd. This is our new reality.
New Survey coming this weekend!Post-fact society, remember? So long as we have the Internet spreading misinformation, Breitbart spreading alt-Reich propaganda, and Trump spewing his distinctive brand of bullshit all over the news, I'm not optimistic for any sudden Heel Realizations from his base.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."Matt Yglesias comes up with a way to talk to Trump supporters
:
There’s no particular need to find a magic formula to lift the scales from the eyes of Trump’s biggest supporters or to shatter his stranglehold and Republican Party loyalists. Democrats don’t necessarily need to convince a single Trump fan to stop liking him. What they need to do is find a way to convince the people who don’t like Trump to support their nominee instead.
They've already started to worry.
The human mind has a fascinating capacity for denial, so many people will never wake up, but some people are capable of realizing they've been duped, even if it takes a long time.
The concerning thing there is, half of them seem upset at the prospect that he might not be quite as tyrannical and despicable as he promised he would be. (And it's far too early to tell one way or the other, but that's neither here nor there.) Look at the number of people who are yelling at him for saying he might not lock up Clinton after all.
These people aren't going to suddenly flip and go Democratic next time. They're just going to rally behind the next Trump to come along. And the next one will almost certainly be even worse.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."This all goes back to Gringrich in '94. He started this whole partisan bullshit. 25 years ago, your political affiliation was really low on the list of things you identified with (i.e like race, gender, religion, etc)
Nowadays, you have a less than 5%(IIRC) chance of even dating someone with opposite political views, let alone marrying and associating with.
Political Polarization+Southern Strategy+Fake News+GOP voters being able to hold their nose and voting for their guy despite his flaws+Social media Bubble=Donald Trump is President.
Take one of those away and he would've been toast
That's a valid observation, BUT if there are enough of these people (I don't necessarily trust a series of anecdotes to represent all of Trump's supporters) it means that there could be a lower turnout for Trump in 2020, as people become disillusioned with his false promises and a potential failure to improve the economy.
The long-term prospects of Trump being elected are indeed pretty horrible, though.
![]()
If I might ask, could you be more specific about Gingrich's role in all this? What did he do exactly?
edited 7th Dec '16 1:43:25 PM by Draghinazzo
True, and I'll keep my fingers crossed. But as I've said before, when it comes to 2020, I'm actually less concerned with who's going to run and who's going to vote for who, as I am with "thanks to systemic voter suppression only getting worse and worse in the years to come, will it matter."
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."Yes, Gingrich bares the brunt of the political polarization, though I'd argue that Reagan planted the seeds, but that didn't mean Newt had to water the damn garden.
Anyhow, up until the 1994 midterms, the Democrats had controlled the House of Representatives for 72 years and in those years, the GOP had only control two times for a total of four years, due to Southern Democrats not abandoning the party, ticket-splitting, and light gerrymandering.
It's a long story, but Newt spent 16 years planning the House takeover for the GOP, and he swept in 94 midterms with 54 new seats. He was rewarded with this by becoming Speaker of the House, and thus, Third in the Presidential succession.
It was immediately clear to President Clinton and other big time Democrats in Washington at the time that something was very very VERY wrong the minute Newt was sworn in as Speaker. One very overlooked fact in his Speakership was that Newt started the trend of centralizing power in party leadership. In other words, all of those important committee chairmanships like Means and Ways, Intelligence Committee, Budget, etc, he could appoint those chairmanships himself. This allowed him to tightly control the agenda and sideline dissident factions in his party in a way that EVERY Speaker since has exploited.
He also shut the Congressional workweek to three days, which at the time he argued it was for more contact with constituents, but in reality it was more so he and other party members could fundraise tons of money and it advertedly cut down on how much time both sides spent together outside of work. Tip O'Neil and Reagan were infamous in their time they spent together despite being diametrically opposed politically. Gingrich changed all of that. Gingrich emphasized winning than good governance. And because of the rapid rise of C-SPAN (which Newt took advantage of) a lot of Americans saw this split with their own eyes, and there was a growing sense of tribalism. Not enough to make a difference at the Presidential level (yet, that'd wait until 9/11 when it REALLY took off and never looked back)
Adding into those factors was President Bill Clinton who had basically demolished (hyperbole, yes) H.W and some GOP members took the lost personally, because after a generation, there was a sense of entitlement tot he Presidency, because outside of Carter (who was a lightweight let's be honest, if a good man) there was as sense of entitlement to the White House. So they tried to take down both Bill AND Hillary simultaneously because of Newt's personal greed and ambition for power and control, which clashed with Washingtonian norms he had upended without a care in the world. It had gotten so bad that they had investigated the Clintons over Christmas Cards. No, I'm completely serious.
All together, Gingrich’s emphasis on partisan warfare über alles sped the demise of the comity that is essential to the functioning of Congress. If the parties refuse to work together, little can be achieved without super-majorities, and/or getting rid of the filibuster.
It's a sad state of affairs, and our country is worse off for it.
New Survey coming this weekend!How little Congress meets these days has started to get some attention; here's to hoping that one trend, at least, can be reversed. Republicans seem intent on making sure they meet as little as possible, though. Aside of fundraising needs I can't imagine what that accomplishes since it just makes them look lazy as hell.
Hey, if Republicans all happen to be on vacation when Congress meets, can Congress pass bills?
Not that I recommend taking such a course of action, of course
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for you
Yes. A vote doesn't require all legislators to be present to be legally binding. If they snooze, they lose.
Shortly before the outbreak of the Civil War, as Secessionists resigned their seats in the Senate and the House, those remainingnote were able to pass bills for projects that had been blocked by Southern Senators before the war.
And if some Representative or Senator is absent when a vote is called, I don't think there's any method of casting a ballot if they're not physically there. They gotta show up for work, just like the rest of us.
edited 7th Dec '16 5:45:38 PM by pwiegle
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.Relevant to that question
. Basically, a lot of Senators' terms will be expiring on the 3rd, and there's a petition going around asking the Senators who will be seated - 34 Dems to 30 Republicans, with two independents - to recognize Merrick Garland.
I wonder if it'll work, or if we're going to have more traitor Democrats...
edited 7th Dec '16 4:06:51 PM by RedSavant
It's been fun.hmmmm. The Right is generally more ritualistic in their religious beliefs right? Maybe if the Democrats met on religious holidays to get stuff passed surreptitiously...
Oh but wait.
President Trump.
Hm. Maybe we just need a way to word things that make them sound conservative but have liberal effects... This will all come down to who can manipulate Trump better.
OOOOOoooooOOOOOooooOOOOOOoooooooooooh!!!!!!!
edited 7th Dec '16 4:08:54 PM by blkwhtrbbt
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for you

In actuality there probably is enough money to be able to do that, but it existing and actually acquiring it is something else entirely.
There is a reason why many otherwise leftist people oppose UBI, because the scheme can be simultaneously too expensive and not generous enough (since UBI is often characterized as a replacement far all welfare, which if you ask me it really can't be).
edited 7th Dec '16 1:25:19 PM by Mio