Where is all this anger coming from? It’s viral, and Trump is Typhoid Mary. Intellectually and emotionally weakened by years of steadily degraded public discourse, we are now two separate ideological countries, LeftLand and RightLand, speaking different languages, the lines between us down. Not only do our two subcountries reason differently; they draw upon non-intersecting data sets and access entirely different mythological systems. You and I approach a castle. One of us has watched only “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” the other only “Game of Thrones.” What is the meaning, to the collective “we,” of yon castle? We have no common basis from which to discuss it. You, the other knight, strike me as bafflingly ignorant, a little unmoored. In the old days, a liberal and a conservative (a “dove” and a “hawk,” say) got their data from one of three nightly news programs, a local paper, and a handful of national magazines, and were thus starting with the same basic facts (even if those facts were questionable, limited, or erroneous). Now each of us constructs a custom informational universe, wittingly (we choose to go to the sources that uphold our existing beliefs and thus flatter us) or unwittingly (our app algorithms do the driving for us). The data we get this way, pre-imprinted with spin and mythos, are intensely one-dimensional. (As a proud knight of LeftLand, I was interested to find that, in RightLand, Vince Foster has still been murdered, Dick Morris is a reliable source, kids are brainwashed “way to the left” by going to college, and Obama may yet be Muslim. I expect that my interviewees found some of my core beliefs equally jaw-dropping.)
Um, Typhoid Mary actually spread a bacteria, not a virus. Salmonella typhii, to be exact.
(I expect that my interviewees found some of my core beliefs equally jaw-dropping.)
Yes, yes, yes.
My father-in-law got frustrated today talking politics, and he goes, "Why can't people just understand what would happen if Hillary was elected? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand how it would destroy this country!" (Actual quote). He literally could not comprehend how other people could think differently than him, and it was frustrating him almost to the point of tears.
I don't talk politics around family anymore because there is no more reason, no more logic, no more looking at a data set and discussing different ways of interpreting it. It's just "I'm right, and anybody who doesn't agree with me is a moron."
I think a lot of people fall into this trap because challenging your own belief system might be one of the hardest things on earth to do. When you come out on the other side, however, it's worth all the pain and suffering. You either reinforce what you thought was true, giving you even more conviction. Or some of your old weak beliefs are cast aside for ones that are better.
It's funny how we'll go to ten different websites to look up reviews of a product we want to buy, but we won't do the same to figure out all the angles of a news story or politician.
This is exactly how my father and mother in law think and act.
When we went for a visit last month we were bombarded with, "get your head out of your ass" and Trump is the only solution type shit. No intelligent discussion or debate, just, this is the only and right way and nothing else matters.
My in laws have so much anger directed at Hillary and anyone NOT in the Trump camp, it's actually scary. They get so enraged and hateful when discussing politics...I just have never seen anything like it.
In my college days I looked forward to many a spirited debate with my grandfather. Back then the topic of the day was Nixon, and for him the fact that Nixon was a strong supporter of Israel trumped everything else (it would be years before the word of his anti-Semitism got out).
Anyway, one day Zaide Nathan put everything to rest with a simple "I'm not saying that you're wrong - but I'm right."
That line lives on in my family to this day.
I spent 90% of the money I made on women, booze, and drugs. The other 10% I just pissed away.
YellowKing wrote:
I told him to stop getting his hopes up and prepare for eight years of Hillary.
Four years. America will relapse into Clinton Fatigue by '20.
This is my prediction as well. Unless the GOP nominates another trump in four years.
I'll just say that I think this is highly probable as well. If the polls are correct, far too many people are willing to nominate a turnip over Hillary. That's a lot of hate.
YellowKing wrote:
I told him to stop getting his hopes up and prepare for eight years of Hillary.
Four years. America will relapse into Clinton Fatigue by '20.
This is my prediction as well. Unless the GOP nominates another trump in four years.
I'll just say that I think this is highly probable as well. If the polls are correct, far too many people are willing to nominate a turnip over Hillary. That's a lot of hate.
This assumes the GOP still exists as a serious politcal party after this.
I think you "4 years" folks are probably right. I said 8 years more to get a rise out of my stepdad.
One would imagine (though I've been proven wrong many times before) that the Republican party would be very careful about the next batch of candidates. All it would take to beat Hillary in 2020 would be someone who comes off as halfway sane. Though that seems to be a pretty tall order these days.
YellowKing wrote:I think you "4 years" folks are probably right. I said 8 years more to get a rise out of my stepdad.
One would imagine (though I've been proven wrong many times before) that the Republican party would be very careful about the next batch of candidates. All it would take to beat Hillary in 2020 would be someone who comes off as halfway sane. Though that seems to be a pretty tall order these days.
It's amazing to think that the people who picked the GOP nominee picked pretty much the only guy who could lose to Hillary. I say this in hindsight because I really had no idea how deep the Hillary hatred ran until this election cycle ran.
YellowKing wrote:
I told him to stop getting his hopes up and prepare for eight years of Hillary.
Four years. America will relapse into Clinton Fatigue by '20.
This is my prediction as well. Unless the GOP nominates another trump in four years.
I'll just say that I think this is highly probable as well. If the polls are correct, far too many people are willing to nominate a turnip over Hillary. That's a lot of hate.
This assumes the GOP still exists as a serious politcal party after this.
If the GOP falls something else will rise to take it's place. But I don't think it will fall, it might continue to stumble for another ten years or so then reform and become viable again. Hopefully for the good of our system the GOP gets it's act together sooner than later.
YellowKing wrote:All it would take to beat Hillary in 2020 would be someone who comes off as halfway sane. Though that seems to be a pretty tall order these days.
Agreed. Recent history suggests GOP primary voters reject the sane candidates and embrace the crazy.
YellowKing wrote:All it would take to beat Hillary in 2020 would be someone who comes off as halfway sane. Though that seems to be a pretty tall order these days.
Agreed. Recent history suggests GOP primary voters reject the sane candidates and embrace the crazy.
I want to believe that this was just a unique conflux of disgruntledness and crazy that won't repeat itself in the near future.
YellowKing wrote:
I told him to stop getting his hopes up and prepare for eight years of Hillary.
Four years. America will relapse into Clinton Fatigue by '20.
This is my prediction as well. Unless the GOP nominates another trump in four years.
I'll just say that I think this is highly probable as well. If the polls are correct, far too many people are willing to nominate a turnip over Hillary. That's a lot of hate.
This assumes the GOP still exists as a serious politcal party after this.
Yup. Hillary's performance in office will be of secondary concern. So many minds are so irrevocably set that she could walk on water for four years and be accused of wearing the devil's shoes.
But it mostly depends on what new demagogue takes up Trump's mantle. Imagine one who still spouts the crazy but runs a professional campaign. Or the establishment might reclaim the party...but that seems like a long shot right now.
Rip wrote:So what you guys are saying is Hillary was the best the Democrats had and she is worse than every Republican candidate except Trump.
That Cruz would have won?
That Christie would have won?
Ben Carson would have won?
No, she's better than every single Republican candidate put up this year. So is Bernie Sanders and Captain Crunch, for that matter.
That isn't what GreenGoo said.
It's amazing to think that the people who picked the GOP nominee picked pretty much the only guy who could lose to Hillary. I say this in hindsight because I really had no idea how deep the Hillary hatred ran until this election cycle ran.
Well, it's still a little too early to talk about reelection, given that she hasn't even won the election yet, but..
(One of) Clinton's flaws is her poor campaigning skills (in terms of charisma, not in terms of ground game or displaying understanding of the issues, etc). Her approval is fine when she's actually doing a job. So I think we'll see poll ratings similar to Obama (eg, along partisan lines), and her unfavorables will go down, at least until the next election season.
I think Clinton would have the advantage over an average (non-insane) Republican candidate, between the advantage of the incumbency and the demographic shift. Paul Ryan might be a strong challenger. Maybe Kasich.
Rip wrote:So what you guys are saying is Hillary was the best the Democrats had and she is worse than every Republican candidate except Trump.
That Cruz would have won?
That Christie would have won?
Ben Carson would have won?
Given how much hatred there is for Hillary? Yeah, I'm thinking just about anyone but Trump could have won the general. If Trump can come close, any reasonable person could beat her.
It's hardly my fault that the republican base decided NOW was an appropriate time to rebel and pick a charlatan, when their odds of winning should have been far higher than normal. The base has literally submarined themselves in their efforts to submarine those in charge of their party. Way to go. I'm sure it will make a difference for the better in the future.
People are forgetting that Clinton's favorable rating were actually very high until the past couple of years. Her approvals 2009-2014 were in the mid-60's, very good for any partisan figure.
The GOP has been pouring it on since 2014 because she was always the one they needed to beat in 2016. Their negative spin spilled over into general media, and it definitely shaped Clinton's reputation going into the campaign.
In partisan terms, the Benghazi hearings weren't a waste of time and money at all: they did exactly what they were intended to do.
hepcat wrote:
You left out the ones that weren't complete loons. Kasich, for example.
I was going to make the same comment but I had said "anyone" except Trump could have beaten Hillary, so it's fair for Rip to pick other clowns that aren't Trump. And honestly, I think those clowns would have had a better chance of pulling some fence sitters over to the right than Trump does.
Holman wrote:People are forgetting that Clinton's favorable rating were actually very high until the past couple of years. Her approvals 2009-2014 were in the mid-60's, very good for any partisan figure.
The GOP has been pouring it on since 2014 because she was always the one they needed to beat in 2016. Their negative spin spilled over into general media, and it definitely shaped Clinton's reputation going into the campaign.
In partisan terms, the Benghazi hearings weren't a waste of time and money at all: they did exactly what they were intended to do.
When you consider the amount of public money that was used for, not just partisan reasons, but blatant election campaigning, it's an atrocious misuse of public funds.
Holman wrote:In partisan terms, the Benghazi hearings weren't a waste of time and money at all: they did exactly what they were intended to do.
Even though she's not going to be charged with anything, the FBI director indicating that it was "extremely careless" isn't exactly a label you'd want going into the actual election. As you've noted, the court of public opinion is likely the real important factor here and now Trump (and the GOP) now has that sound bite and label to utilize as they see fit.
Holman wrote:In partisan terms, the Benghazi hearings weren't a waste of time and money at all: they did exactly what they were intended to do.
Even though she's not going to be charged with anything, the FBI director indicating that it was "extremely careless" isn't exactly a label you'd want going into the actual election. As you've noted, the court of public opinion is likely the real important factor here and now Trump (and the GOP) now has that sound bite and label to utilize as they see fit.
I wonder if anyone is keeping track of the number of times "very" is used in a Trump tweet...
YellowKing wrote:I think you "4 years" folks are probably right. I said 8 years more to get a rise out of my stepdad.
One would imagine (though I've been proven wrong many times before) that the Republican party would be very careful about the next batch of candidates. All it would take to beat Hillary in 2020 would be someone who comes off as halfway sane. Though that seems to be a pretty tall order these days.
Except that the Republican Party has no say regarding who runs for their nomination in 2020. American political parties are very structurally weak. In Europe, a figure like Trump could never have swung in and taken the leadership of a major party. There's nothing stopping Tea Party voters from forcing the GOP to run with a Trump-like figure, or someone equally unelectable like Ted Cruz. Right now, the far right in the country is unwilling to listen to reason and nominate a qualified, reasonable candidate, and they control the GOP nominating process.
On the other side, the far left is becoming similarly restive, but they don't control the Democratic Party the way the fringe of the GOP controls it.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
GreenGoo wrote:It's amazing to think that the people who picked the GOP nominee picked pretty much the only guy who could lose to Hillary.
Eh, the only one of the GOP candidates who I think would have been an odds-on favorite to beat Hillary was Rubio. Everyone else was either a 50/50 shot at best, with most far less likely to win than that.
I say this in hindsight because I really had no idea how deep the Hillary hatred ran until this election cycle ran.
Hillary Clinton's approval ratings plummet when she runs for office and skyrocket when she's actually serving in office. It'll be interesting to see where she stands in 2020, provided she wins, as expected, in November. She was a controversial Senate candidate in 2000, but won in a walk in 2006.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
Fireball wrote:
Hillary Clinton's approval ratings plummet when she runs for office and skyrocket when she's actually serving in office. It'll be interesting to see where she stands in 2020, provided she wins, as expected, in November. She was a controversial Senate candidate in 2000, but won in a walk in 2006.
Yeah, I'm expecting she'll do more than a competent job and a lot of the baggage dogging her this time will be left at the side of the road.
YellowKing wrote:I think you "4 years" folks are probably right. I said 8 years more to get a rise out of my stepdad.
One would imagine (though I've been proven wrong many times before) that the Republican party would be very careful about the next batch of candidates. All it would take to beat Hillary in 2020 would be someone who comes off as halfway sane. Though that seems to be a pretty tall order these days.
Except that the Republican Party has no say regarding who runs for their nomination in 2020. American political parties are very structurally weak. In Europe, a figure like Trump could never have swung in and taken the leadership of a major party. There's nothing stopping Tea Party voters from forcing the GOP to run with a Trump-like figure, or someone equally unelectable like Ted Cruz. Right now, the far right in the country is unwilling to listen to reason and nominate a qualified, reasonable candidate, and they control the GOP nominating process.
On the other side, the far left is becoming similarly restive, but they don't control the Democratic Party the way the fringe of the GOP controls it.
It isn't the fringe of the party. He won by a landslide with turnout up 62%. While Democrat turnout was down 21%. Just sayin.
YellowKing wrote:I think you "4 years" folks are probably right. I said 8 years more to get a rise out of my stepdad.
One would imagine (though I've been proven wrong many times before) that the Republican party would be very careful about the next batch of candidates. All it would take to beat Hillary in 2020 would be someone who comes off as halfway sane. Though that seems to be a pretty tall order these days.
Except that the Republican Party has no say regarding who runs for their nomination in 2020. American political parties are very structurally weak. In Europe, a figure like Trump could never have swung in and taken the leadership of a major party. There's nothing stopping Tea Party voters from forcing the GOP to run with a Trump-like figure, or someone equally unelectable like Ted Cruz. Right now, the far right in the country is unwilling to listen to reason and nominate a qualified, reasonable candidate, and they control the GOP nominating process.
On the other side, the far left is becoming similarly restive, but they don't control the Democratic Party the way the fringe of the GOP controls it.
It isn't the fringe of the party. He won by a landslide with turnout up 62%. While Democrat turnout was down 21%. Just sayin.
You realize that this makes rather than refutes Fireball's point, don't you?
Rip wrote:
It isn't the fringe of the party. He won by a landslide with turnout up 62%. While Democrat turnout was down 21%. Just sayin.
I thought he won about 40% while there were other candidates in the field. After they dropped out, he got 70-80%.
Also, while Republican turnout was up, I'm not impressed with the turnout comparisons, since they compare Democrats to 2008 (a record high turnout) while they compare Republican turnout to 2012 (a fairly low turnout for Republicans during a non-incumbency primary - the total number of Republicans who turned out in 2012 was significantly lower than in 2008, which wasn't that high)
Fireball wrote:Hillary Clinton's approval ratings plummet when she runs for office and skyrocket when she's actually serving in office. It'll be interesting to see where she stands in 2020, provided she wins, as expected, in November. She was a controversial Senate candidate in 2000, but won in a walk in 2006.
Not really sure this is a great data point. It was a mid-term and who was going to risk the reputational damage / crossfire from her political machine to go after a Senate seat when you know she is going to be running for President in 2 years?
