Octopus Overlords

Pyperkub wrote:538 takes a (scary) look at Trump's supporters (and that wing of the GOP):

One way to understand Trump’s longevity is to look more closely at his supporters. Trump’s backers tend to be whiter, slightly older and less educated than the average Republican voter. But perhaps more importantly, his supporters have shown signs of being misinformed. Political science research has shown that the behavior of misinformed citizens is different from those who are uninformed, and this difference may explain Trump’s unusual staying power...

...As Kuklinski and his colleagues established, in the U.S., the most misinformed citizens tend to be the most confident in their views and are also the strongest partisans. These folks fill the gaps in their knowledge base by using their existing belief systems. Once these inferences are stored into memory, they become “indistinguishable from hard data,” Kuklinski and his colleagues found.

Kind of like Climate Change, or Thanks, Obama!

This depth of political misinformation only really takes hold when it's reinforced by the partisan media echo chamber. Trump has just taken right-wing narratives the next step: basing a campaign wholly in those narratives rather in the strategic use of those narratives to further longer-standing Republican agendas.

Trump himself might be an outsider to the GOP, but his supporters are the GOP's creature breaking loose from its chains. This might eventually prove to be Trump's fatal mistake: he seems to think his support is all about him. In the long run, we're going to see that it's bigger than Trump, and it won't go away when he does.

Trump: Making America Stupid Again.

America has always been stupid. He's just weaponized it.

Has Trump taken a position on the Frito Banditos in Oregon?

Jaymann wrote:Has Trump taken a position on the Frito Banditos in Oregon?

He said they should go home because "We need law and order."

It's a good way to dissociate himself from obvious failure while still pushing his strong-man angle.

Holman wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:538 takes a (scary) look at Trump's supporters (and that wing of the GOP):

One way to understand Trump’s longevity is to look more closely at his supporters. Trump’s backers tend to be whiter, slightly older and less educated than the average Republican voter. But perhaps more importantly, his supporters have shown signs of being misinformed. Political science research has shown that the behavior of misinformed citizens is different from those who are uninformed, and this difference may explain Trump’s unusual staying power...

...As Kuklinski and his colleagues established, in the U.S., the most misinformed citizens tend to be the most confident in their views and are also the strongest partisans. These folks fill the gaps in their knowledge base by using their existing belief systems. Once these inferences are stored into memory, they become “indistinguishable from hard data,” Kuklinski and his colleagues found.

Kind of like Climate Change, or Thanks, Obama!

This depth of political misinformation only really takes hold when it's reinforced by the partisan media echo chamber. Trump has just taken right-wing narratives the next step: basing a campaign wholly in those narratives rather in the strategic use of those narratives to further longer-standing Republican agendas.

Trump himself might be an outsider to the GOP, but his supporters are the GOP's creature breaking loose from its chains. This might eventually prove to be Trump's fatal mistake: he seems to think his support is all about him. In the long run, we're going to see that it's bigger than Trump, and it won't go away when he does.

Actually, I think it starts as the unattributed emails that get passed around and are routinely debunked by snopes, if you've ever had one forwarded by a crazy relative.

Holman wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:538 takes a (scary) look at Trump's supporters (and that wing of the GOP):

One way to understand Trump’s longevity is to look more closely at his supporters. Trump’s backers tend to be whiter, slightly older and less educated than the average Republican voter. But perhaps more importantly, his supporters have shown signs of being misinformed. Political science research has shown that the behavior of misinformed citizens is different from those who are uninformed, and this difference may explain Trump’s unusual staying power...

...As Kuklinski and his colleagues established, in the U.S., the most misinformed citizens tend to be the most confident in their views and are also the strongest partisans. These folks fill the gaps in their knowledge base by using their existing belief systems. Once these inferences are stored into memory, they become “indistinguishable from hard data,” Kuklinski and his colleagues found.

Kind of like Climate Change, or Thanks, Obama!

This depth of political misinformation only really takes hold when it's reinforced by the partisan media echo chamber. Trump has just taken right-wing narratives the next step: basing a campaign wholly in those narratives rather in the strategic use of those narratives to further longer-standing Republican agendas.

Trump himself might be an outsider to the GOP, but his supporters are the GOP's creature breaking loose from its chains. This might eventually prove to be Trump's fatal mistake: he seems to think his support is all about him. In the long run, we're going to see that it's bigger than Trump, and it won't go away when he does.

Actually, I think it starts as the unattributed emails that get passed around and are routinely debunked by snopes, if you've ever had one forwarded by a crazy relative.

Pyperkub wrote:538 takes a (scary) look at Trump's supporters (and that wing of the GOP):

One way to understand Trump’s longevity is to look more closely at his supporters. Trump’s backers tend to be whiter, slightly older and less educated than the average Republican voter. But perhaps more importantly, his supporters have shown signs of being misinformed. Political science research has shown that the behavior of misinformed citizens is different from those who are uninformed, and this difference may explain Trump’s unusual staying power...

Just for giggles, I'll also point out the Trump's supporters also tend to be irreligious, so his supporters end up being uneducated, misinformed atheists Guess that rationality thing isn't quite working out so well

Considering only 3ish% of the US are Atheists, I think you'll have to look elsewhere for his support.

Yeah, it's a big leap from irreligious to atheist. Or from "not evangelical" to irreligious, for that matter.

Kraken wrote:Yeah, it's a big leap from irreligious to atheist. Or from "not evangelical" to irreligious, for that matter.

Irreligious are just practical atheists. A rose by any other name . . .

Grifman wrote:Irreligious are just practical atheists. A rose by any other name . . .

Nonsense. Apathy and or agnosticism aren't atheism. Atheism is its own brand of theism. Apathy is not. Trump's supporters are NOT bands of rational atheists. And you know that.

Grifman wrote:

Kraken wrote:Yeah, it's a big leap from irreligious to atheist. Or from "not evangelical" to irreligious, for that matter.

Irreligious are just practical atheists. A rose by any other name . . .

Would smell like bullshit? Well, something does.

I feel safer knowing that Evangelicals back sane candidates like Cruz and Carson.

Holman wrote:I feel safer knowing that Evangelicals back sane candidates like Cruz and Carson.

It's more reassuring that the GOP frontrunner got there without pandering to evangelicals, or at least by pandering to concerns other than their religious beliefs. That could change conventional primary strategy in years to come if the eventual nominee can get there without using come-to-Jesus tactics.

Grifman wrote:

Kraken wrote:Yeah, it's a big leap from irreligious to atheist. Or from "not evangelical" to irreligious, for that matter.

Irreligious are just practical atheists. A rose by any other name . . .

I have exactly one friend who's religious in the church-affiliated sense. One might reasonably call the rest of my acquaintances irreligious. Yet nearly everybody I know holds private spiritual or religious beliefs that don't resemble atheism.

As I understand it, the point was that Trump supporters are non-evangelicals. I still maintain that it's several steps from there to "practical atheists", whatever that means.

Kraken wrote:

Holman wrote:I feel safer knowing that Evangelicals back sane candidates like Cruz and Carson.

It's more reassuring that the GOP frontrunner got there without pandering to evangelicals, or at least by pandering to concerns other than their religious beliefs. That could change conventional primary strategy in years to come if the eventual nominee can get there without using come-to-Jesus tactics.

Grifman wrote:

Kraken wrote:Yeah, it's a big leap from irreligious to atheist. Or from "not evangelical" to irreligious, for that matter.

Irreligious are just practical atheists. A rose by any other name . . .

I have exactly one friend who's religious in the church-affiliated sense. One might reasonably call the rest of my acquaintances irreligious. Yet nearly everybody I know holds private spiritual or religious beliefs that don't resemble atheism.

As I understand it, the point was that Trump supporters are non-evangelicals. I still maintain that it's several steps from there to "practical atheists", whatever that means.

I agree. Trump supporters aren't so much anti-religious as not inclined to let religion dictate their political beliefs. There is a big difference between not being a church goer and being a non-believer.

Evangelicals might be up for grabs, but one group knows that Trump is their man:
White Nationalist PAC Blankets Iowa With Robocalls For Trump.

“I urge you to vote for Donald Trump because he is the one candidate who points out that we should accept immigrants who are good for America,” Jared Taylor said on the robocall, paid for by the American National Super PAC. “We don’t need Muslims. We need smart, well-educated white people who will assimilate to our culture. Vote Trump.”

Taylor is the founder of the white supremacist magazine American Renaissance. The robocall included two more endorsements from a conservative Christian talk show host and the head of the white nationalist American Freedom Party.

...

Jared Taylor also serves as a spokesman for the Council of Conservative Citizens, which was cited in the manifesto written by Charleston shooter Dylann Roof as the group that opened his eyes to what he saw as the scourge of black-on-white crime in America. Roof went on a shooting rampage at a historically black church in June, killing nine parishioners.

Apparently this was done without coordination with the Trump team, but we need to hear Trump completely repudiate it immediately. Even if we do, however, it's telling that the racists are using his campaign as a vehicle to raise their own profile and get their message out.

US News and World Report has posted an article saying that as many as 20% of likely democratic votors could defect and vote for Trump:

link

I don't think out of any election in my entire lifetime have I felt so much pessimism towards both parties' candidates. And I say that even though we don't have nominees, because there's not a single candidate in the entire race that I could feel good about voting for.

msduncan wrote:US News and World Report has posted an article saying that as many as 20% of likely democratic votors could defect and vote for Trump:

link

They're the ones who think you have to hit rock bottom before you can start to get better. I wonder how republican voters would defect if he was the nominee?

Alefroth wrote:

msduncan wrote:US News and World Report has posted an article saying that as many as 20% of likely democratic votors could defect and vote for Trump:

link

They're the ones who think you have to hit rock bottom before you can start to get better. I wonder how republican voters would defect if he was the nominee?

14 percent according to the poll/article.

YellowKing wrote:I don't think out of any election in my entire lifetime have I felt so much pessimism towards both parties' candidates. And I say that even though we don't have nominees, because there's not a single candidate in the entire race that I could feel good about voting for.

With the exception of Bernie (who has a snowball's chance in hell), I'm with you. The entire crop on both sides consists of nothing but criminals, dangerous extremists, and disastrously narcissistic idiots. I can't recall an election in which I felt that no matter who won, it was going to be bad for our country. All I can do now is to vote for the criminal. At least with her I know she's just filling her pockets when no one's looking.

Clinton is the only halfway decent candidate of the whole sorry lot. Sadly, she's only a halfway decent candidate.

As a leftie, watching the R Party tear itself apart should fill me with a lot more delight than it actually does. Mostly I find the ascendancy of the Know-Nothings sad and worrisome.

I refuse to give up hope for Sanders until Clinton is actually coronated. At that point I'll despair along with the rest of you.

The bright spot for me is the anticipation of the butthurt and whining should Clinton lose.


I can't wait!

There aren't any candidates in either party that I would feel good about. But there are a number that I could tolerate. Sanders, Clinton, Rubio, Bush, Christie. I could live through any of those Presidencies likely without incident. With any luck, two of that crowd will be nominated by their parties, and the prospect of a Trump election will recede into an unpleasant memory.

Rip wrote:The bright spot for me is the anticipation of the butthurt and whining should Clinton lose.


I can't wait!

The bright spot for me would be the butthurt and whining from you if she won.

Kraken wrote:As a leftie, watching the R Party tear itself apart should fill me with a lot more delight than it actually does. Mostly I find the ascendancy of the Know-Nothings sad and worrisome.

I refuse to give up hope for Sanders until Clinton is actually coronated. At that point I'll despair along with the rest of you.

As someone who longs to be "a rightie" I wish 1) they would hurry the hell up, 2) I understood how tearing itself apart results in them controlling Congress.

I *do* have primary day marked in my calendar to go vote for Bernie. We may yet see how wise of a decision that is.

hepcat wrote:

Rip wrote:The bright spot for me is the anticipation of the butthurt and whining should Clinton lose.


I can't wait!

The bright spot for me would be the butthurt and whining from you if she won.

You will be disappointed. I expect her to win so it will be hard to be very butthurt about it.

Ah come on. Your butt will hurt a little bit at least. Admit it. Admit your butt will hurt!

Rip is walking around with his butt hurt this whole time.

I'll go ahead and say I support Clinton, and not entirely grudgingly.

I like Sanders a lot, but as an elderly atheist socialist he's not electable in this cycle's America: any Republican, even Trump, could run against him from the center. Sanders is a meaningful gadfly, and his championship of social democracy is important, but he hasn't demonstrated any ability to lead the Democratic party in Washington. In a climate of entrenched Republican congressional opposition, that's what matters right now.

I would prefer Elizabeth Warren, but she's not in the mix. I would also prefer marathon-running FDR or Abraham Lincoln (with Grant and Sherman doing GOTV). Unfortunately it's 2016, and we're living in an America threatened mainly by its own reactionary ignorance.

Clinton has baggage, but she has proven time and again that she can weather the attacks. I think her finest hours were the eleven she spent giving better than she got against a GOP that had turned the entire might of a Congressional show trial against one candidate. That was when I decided there was no one tougher and probably no one more capable in this race. I want a tough and capable Democrat like that in the White House.

Clinton is smart, she's experienced, she knows how politics work, and she can lead the party. She's also liberal, feminist, economically sound, sufficiently progressive where it matters to me, and hawkish to a degree I approve. She will nominate sane justices and veto insane bills. I don't think she's close to perfect, but I think she's more than good enough, and her numbers show she can win.

All of that becomes even more important when we look at the GOP field. While there are a couple of superficially tolerable candidates there, every one of them--even the most apparently moderate--is entirely beholden to the worst elements of the 21st-century Republican Party. Even if Trump had never happened, that's the stark choice we're making.

The idealist in me really wants Sanders in there, but the realist in me agrees with pretty much all of that. I think I'll still be voting for Sanders in the NH primary, just because this is the first time in my life when I've had the chance to vote for a candidate who I actually want.

That said, I would get behind a Clinton/Sanders ticket super quickly. I think that's the most likely outcome of the Dem primaries.

Chaz wrote:The idealist in me really wants Sanders in there, but the realist in me agrees with pretty much all of that. I think I'll still be voting for Sanders in the NH primary, just because this is the first time in my life when I've had the chance to vote for a candidate who I actually want.

That said, I would get behind a Clinton/Sanders ticket super quickly. I think that's the most likely outcome of the Dem primaries.

There's also the fact that unless there's a surprise landslide that turns in a democratic House and Senate in 2016, it's unlikely that there will be significant policy differences between Sanders and Clinton.

In other news, apparently my dad (who is a far left green party style voter) has registered as a Republican in order to vote for Trump in the Massachusetts GOP primaries, hoping that Trump gets nominated in order to produce a democratic landslide in the presidential voters. Honestly as far as his politics / voting goes it's probably the most sane political position he's taken in some time, even if hoping for a Trump nomination is playing with fire.

El Guapo wrote:

Chaz wrote:The idealist in me really wants Sanders in there, but the realist in me agrees with pretty much all of that. I think I'll still be voting for Sanders in the NH primary, just because this is the first time in my life when I've had the chance to vote for a candidate who I actually want.

That said, I would get behind a Clinton/Sanders ticket super quickly. I think that's the most likely outcome of the Dem primaries.

There's also the fact that unless there's a surprise landslide that turns in a democratic House and Senate in 2016, it's unlikely that there will be significant policy differences between Sanders and Clinton.

In other news, apparently my dad (who is a far left green party style voter) has registered as a Republican in order to vote for Trump in the Massachusetts GOP primaries, hoping that Trump gets nominated in order to produce a democratic landslide in the presidential voters. Honestly as far as his politics / voting goes it's probably the most sane political position he's taken in some time, even if hoping for a Trump nomination is playing with fire.

Heh, why not just register as an independent?

On the other hand, if you want to make your web browsing experience somewhat trump-free, here's a De-trumpifier extension for chrome. Now, if only there was an extension that did the same for political coverage of all kinds, that'd be great. I'd turn it off once every couple of weeks when I want to hate people and feel depressed, of course.

El Guapo wrote:

Chaz wrote:The idealist in me really wants Sanders in there, but the realist in me agrees with pretty much all of that. I think I'll still be voting for Sanders in the NH primary, just because this is the first time in my life when I've had the chance to vote for a candidate who I actually want.

That said, I would get behind a Clinton/Sanders ticket super quickly. I think that's the most likely outcome of the Dem primaries.

There's also the fact that unless there's a surprise landslide that turns in a democratic House and Senate in 2016, it's unlikely that there will be significant policy differences between Sanders and Clinton.

In other news, apparently my dad (who is a far left green party style voter) has registered as a Republican in order to vote for Trump in the Massachusetts GOP primaries, hoping that Trump gets nominated in order to produce a democratic landslide in the presidential voters. Honestly as far as his politics / voting goes it's probably the most sane political position he's taken in some time, even if hoping for a Trump nomination is playing with fire.

MA has open primaries. Anybody may request either ballot. Ordinarily I take the one for the more disputed party's race, but this time I'm not going to miss my chance to support Bernie.

I don't think Clinton can afford a septuagenarian VP. When asked recently about his VP selection, Sanders talked about what good buddies he and Elizabeth Warren have become. But I think he was just teasing. I can't imagine Warren settling for that office.

Rip wrote:The bright spot for me is the anticipation of the butthurt and whining should Clinton lose.


I can't wait!

The bright spot for me is the anticipation of adults no longer using the word "butthurt".

I can't wait!

Kraken wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

Chaz wrote:The idealist in me really wants Sanders in there, but the realist in me agrees with pretty much all of that. I think I'll still be voting for Sanders in the NH primary, just because this is the first time in my life when I've had the chance to vote for a candidate who I actually want.

That said, I would get behind a Clinton/Sanders ticket super quickly. I think that's the most likely outcome of the Dem primaries.

There's also the fact that unless there's a surprise landslide that turns in a democratic House and Senate in 2016, it's unlikely that there will be significant policy differences between Sanders and Clinton.

In other news, apparently my dad (who is a far left green party style voter) has registered as a Republican in order to vote for Trump in the Massachusetts GOP primaries, hoping that Trump gets nominated in order to produce a democratic landslide in the presidential voters. Honestly as far as his politics / voting goes it's probably the most sane political position he's taken in some time, even if hoping for a Trump nomination is playing with fire.

MA has open primaries. Anybody may request either ballot. Ordinarily I take the one for the more disputed party's race, but this time I'm not going to miss my chance to support Bernie.

I don't think Clinton can afford a septuagenarian VP. When asked recently about his VP selection, Sanders talked about what good buddies he and Elizabeth Warren have become. But I think he was just teasing. I can't imagine Warren settling for that office.

Interesting. I would think that he would know that, given that he works at the polls. This information comes through my mom, though, so maybe she's interpreting his request for a GOP ballot as "registering as a Republican."

Yeah, I'd be surprised if Warren signed on as a VP candidate. I bet Sanders was just offering a no-cost bait for Warren fans - "vote for me in the primaries, and you might maybe also get Warren!"

Warren seems like she would be a waste as a VP. I could get behind Sanders being Warren's VP but I don't think I'd sacrifice the good she is doing in Congress to have her as a VP.

Holman wrote:I'll go ahead and say I support Clinton, and not entirely grudgingly.

I like Sanders a lot, but as an elderly atheist socialist he's not electable in this cycle's America: any Republican, even Trump, could run against him from the center. Sanders is a meaningful gadfly, and his championship of social democracy is important, but he hasn't demonstrated any ability to lead the Democratic party in Washington. In a climate of entrenched Republican congressional opposition, that's what matters right now.

I would prefer Elizabeth Warren, but she's not in the mix. I would also prefer marathon-running FDR or Abraham Lincoln (with Grant and Sherman doing GOTV). Unfortunately it's 2016, and we're living in an America threatened mainly by its own reactionary ignorance.

Clinton has baggage, but she has proven time and again that she can weather the attacks. I think her finest hours were the eleven she spent giving better than she got against a GOP that had turned the entire might of a Congressional show trial against one candidate. That was when I decided there was no one tougher and probably no one more capable in this race. I want a tough and capable Democrat like that in the White House.

Clinton is smart, she's experienced, she knows how politics work, and she can lead the party. She's also liberal, feminist, economically sound, sufficiently progressive where it matters to me, and hawkish to a degree I approve. She will nominate sane justices and veto insane bills. I don't think she's close to perfect, but I think she's more than good enough, and her numbers show she can win.

All of that becomes even more important when we look at the GOP field. While there are a couple of superficially tolerable candidates there, every one of them--even the most apparently moderate--is entirely beholden to the worst elements of the 21st-century Republican Party. Even if Trump had never happened, that's the stark choice we're making.

That's really well stated, and mirrors my own views probably better than I could state them myself