or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trump is #2 in GOP Field - Page 279

post #4171 of 8748
Any discussion on Trump's acceptance speech last night? The content and messaging represent the biggest shift in prevailing political norms I've seen in my lifetime. This is much larger than the (promised) Obama realignment in 2008.

Trump has been riffing on these themes for a year, but last night's speech was the first time I saw them coalesce.
post #4172 of 8748
Supposedly it was an hour and a half long? Christ. Wanna spark note for us Penn?
post #4173 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennglock View Post

Any discussion on Trump's acceptance speech last night? The content and messaging represent the biggest shift in prevailing political norms I've seen in my lifetime. This is much larger than the (promised) Obama realignment in 2008.

Trump has been riffing on these themes for a year, but last night's speech was the first time I saw them coalesce.


What the fuck are you talking about?  The only way you could interpret it as a big shift is if you mean "the party of small government" let a guy openly talk about how only he in a God-king fashion can save our country.  Otherwise it was a lot of Law & Order Republican red meat as though Rudy was running

post #4174 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Medwed View Post

Are you serious? Trump is a test case if ever there was one. If you cannot draw conclusions from his phenomenon than you should get out of data analysis.

Trump is such an abnormal candidate that I don't see how you can draw any conclusions from him losing.

Most of Trump's supporters like a few of his particular polices (of the dozens of often conflicting things he's said), but mostly they like Trump. The same goes for the anti-Trump people. Lots of his policies would be individually liked by Democrats, they're just swamped out by the much more odious ones and Trump. You can't meaningfully extract much about policy because it's all tied up so heavily with Trump himself.

How do you apply that to a future election? Run a better God-Emperor?
post #4175 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post


What the fuck are you talking about?  The only way you could interpret it as a big shift is if you mean "the party of small government" let a guy openly talk about how only he in a God-king fashion can save our country.  Otherwise it was a lot of Law & Order Republican red meat as though Rudy was running

Thumbs up for the God-king reference.

I think there were some big changes, especially in Trump's speech. No talk about the troops, very little about American values other than "winning" and "being great again." Then they just doubled (tripled) down on FEAR. There wasn't really any sense of a coherent Republican theory of governance, just GOD FOR GOD-EMPEROR.


Ivanka's speech sounded like she was talking to the DNC. Very strange.
post #4176 of 8748
Read the text-- http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/full-transcript-donald-trump-nomination-acceptance-speech-at-rnc-225974

There is very little in here that I can imagine Romney, McCain, GW, Dole, or GHW delivering.

That the speech contains law and order red meat is not significant, but that fact that those bits comprise 50% of the thing certainly is.


My read is that the law and order bits were a subset of the main, extremely focused, message: the ruling class has been actively working against the interests of the majority of the population. That's the point of departure from past nominees. Romney might have laid out a case for how his principles would lead the US in a better direction than the principles of his opponent. Trump's attacks are aimed at a lower level of the foundation-- that those in power are actively working against existing law-abiding citizens. He is not presuming any kind of good-faith in his political opposition.

I have no dog in the fight this election, but if Trump stays on this message while hammering H, it could sell.
post #4177 of 8748

Has there been any discussion here about  the CNN and NYT articles about Trumps VP having full reign and authority on both domestic and foreign policy?

post #4178 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post


Immigration and Syrian refugees would be an example of how they differ on policy. Hillary is guaranteed to do all of the things you mentioned. Trump might do some of them. As far as not voting in order to protest our choices, that's not going to do me any good if Hillary gets into office. Breaking away from the current system could take a generation or longer. We don't have that much time.


You could vote for a third party.  At the very least it would show the major parties they need to adopt more  planks of the platform.  Imagine a scenario where Trump loses by 2-3% and Johnson has 5-6%.  Odds are he took from both evenly, but it will be sold as Johnson cost Trump the election, and perhaps the Republicans won't alienate fiscal conservatives and libertarian leaning Republicans again.

Thats well and good but nothing really says how much you hate Hillary like a spite vote for Trump

post #4179 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Trump is such an abnormal candidate that I don't see how you can draw any conclusions from him losing.

Most of Trump's supporters like a few of his particular polices (of the dozens of often conflicting things he's said), but mostly they like Trump. The same goes for the anti-Trump people. Lots of his policies would be individually liked by Democrats, they're just swamped out by the much more odious ones and Trump. You can't meaningfully extract much about policy because it's all tied up so heavily with Trump himself.

How do you apply that to a future election? Run a better God-Emperor?

Of course personality has a factor no doubt. But on THAT personality you not gonna run far with any constituents. It is not how he says it (which is not optimal) it is what he says that matters to his base (and to analysts). It is; issues he has raised vs. demographics that are receptive to those messages. The game has changed. There is hardly any Abortion issues BS, Gays BS, School prayer shit talks and other usual American nonsense that come up in every election game that two-party tyranny has been playing. Trump has good instincts (for a billionaire). How did he come up with all those messages that resonate with poor and blue collar Americans? I can hardly believe that he arrived there due to long intellectual process and by studying national polls. Which brings me to my next point; he cannot be a sociopath, since he clearly has empathy. He may be mildly autistic (his youngest son is definitely so), but Trump is not a sociopath. Otherwise he would’ve never become aware of the feelings of disenfranchised voters and could have never honed his message to them so well and so intuitively. Trump’s strength is his appeal to emotions in everything he says. Emotions win over intellectualism every time.

American establishment lacks survival skills, they have grown too fat and comfy, otherwise they would have lined up behind Trump long time ago. ‘Washington’ better pray Trump wins; it will be the best release valve the country can get (US Brexit). If Clinton takes WH the pressure, racial tensions and general discontent will continue to build and might spill over into something really violent.
I bet anyone that Trump will win popular vote in November even if he loses the election (which I don’t think he will).
post #4180 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbernine View Post
 

Thats well and good but nothing really says how much you hate Hillary like a spite vote for Trump

 

Lisa: This is pretty far to go just to spite Moe, isn't it?

Homer: It's not about spite, it's about petty revenge, and getting back at that traitor Moe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennglock View Post

Read the text-- http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/full-transcript-donald-trump-nomination-acceptance-speech-at-rnc-225974

There is very little in here that I can imagine Romney, McCain, GW, Dole, or GHW delivering.

That the speech contains law and order red meat is not significant, but that fact that those bits comprise 50% of the thing certainly is.


My read is that the law and order bits were a subset of the main, extremely focused, message: the ruling class has been actively working against the interests of the majority of the population. That's the point of departure from past nominees. Romney might have laid out a case for how his principles would lead the US in a better direction than the principles of his opponent. Trump's attacks are aimed at a lower level of the foundation-- that those in power are actively working against existing law-abiding citizens. He is not presuming any kind of good-faith in his political opposition.

I have no dog in the fight this election, but if Trump stays on this message while hammering H, it could sell.

 

I can't imagine any of them saying half the shit Trump said in his speech.  The whole speech about how only Trump can keep us safe, only Trump can restore the economy, etc etc.  The whole thing implies we should drop to our knees and worship the man.

 

Romney in particular was very pro-free trade.  GW talked about it a lot, McCain less so.  I don't remember Dole - I was in elementary school.  Literally the best thing that Republicans have done for this country in the past 20 years is all the free trade agreements like NAFTA.  Sure it was Clinton who signed it, but it was Congressional Republicans who pushed it (and don't forget treaties are a Senate responsibility not an executive responsibility).  Now he's up on stage talking about how free trade is the worst thing in recent history and blaming it on Democrats. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


Thumbs up for the God-king reference.

 

It is the preview image of the video at the top of this article that caused that reaction: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/full-transcript-donald-trump-nomination-acceptance-speech-at-rnc-225974

I mean, I know every candidate is a megalomaniac, but he just takes it to the next level.

post #4181 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Medwed View Post


Of course personality has a factor no doubt. But on THAT personality you not gonna run far with any constituents. It is not how he says it (which is not optimal) it is what he says that matters to his base (and to analysts). It is; issues he has raised vs. demographics that are receptive to those messages. The game has changed. There is hardly any Abortion issues BS, Gays BS, School prayer shit talks and other usual American nonsense that come up in every election game that two-party tyranny has been playing. Trump has good instincts (for a billionaire). How did he come up with all those messages that resonate with poor and blue collar Americans? I can hardly believe that he arrived there due to long intellectual process and by studying national polls.

 

Two things.

 

1. He may not have relied on polls to form his positions.  That's because he just went out and said something, and if he got a lot of blowback, he said the opposite, and he'd just keep saying different things until people latched on.  This is not something most politicians can do (probably because they have voting records).  Kerry was skewered as a flip-flopper over a single issue - Iraq.  I have lost count the number of positions Trump has had on Iraq/ME policy.

 

2. There hasn't been any talk about social issues like gays and abortion because Hillary has flip flopped on those issues so much she's not going to stick her neck out, especially when the left is just going to assume she supports "the right side of history" (I know she got some pushback in the primary from BernieBros).

post #4182 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Medwed View Post

Of course personality has a factor no doubt. But on THAT personality you not gonna run far with any constituents. It is not how he says it (which is not optimal) it is what he says that matters to his base (and to analysts). It is; issues he has raised vs. demographics that are receptive to those messages. The game has changed. There is hardly any Abortion issues BS, Gays BS, School prayer shit talks and other usual American nonsense that come up in every election game that two-party tyranny has been playing. Trump has good instincts (for a billionaire). How did he come up with all those messages that resonate with poor and blue collar Americans? I can hardly believe that he arrived there due to long intellectual process and by studying national polls. Which brings me to my next point; he cannot be a sociopath, since he clearly has empathy. He may be mildly autistic (his youngest son is definitely so), but Trump is not a sociopath. Otherwise he would’ve never become aware of the feelings of disenfranchised voters and could have never honed his message to them so well and so intuitively. Trump’s strength is his appeal to emotions in everything he says. Emotions win over intellectualism every time.

American establishment lacks survival skills, they have grown too fat and comfy, otherwise they would have lined up behind Trump long time ago. ‘Washington’ better pray Trump wins; it will be the best release valve the country can get (US Brexit). If Clinton takes WH the pressure, racial tensions and general discontent will continue to build and might spill over into something really violent.
I bet anyone that Trump will win popular vote in November even if he loses the election (which I don’t think he will).

The point was about bringing home a message if either candidate loses. A Trump loss can be easily be attributed to "Holy hell, a lot of people really disliked Trump." There's not going to be a thousand page long autopsy report from the Republican party after the election if he loses. They're just going to say "we shouldn't run Trump again."


And like brokencycle said, I think you're giving Trump too much credit for policy initiatives. It's not like he came into the campaign with a set of policies that he had cannily assembled for the moment. He threw shit at the wall and his supporters didn't/don't pay attention to all the stuff that didn't stick.
post #4183 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

The point was about bringing home a message if either candidate loses. A Trump loss can be easily be attributed to "Holy hell, a lot of people really disliked Trump." There's not going to be a thousand page long autopsy report from the Republican party after the election if he loses. They're just going to say "we shouldn't run Trump again."

If that's their takeaway, the GOP will fade into irrelevance well ahead of their (demographic-replacement driven) schedule.

Trump has unleashed a wave of populist nationalism, and that genie is not going back in the bottle.
post #4184 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennglock View Post

If that's their takeaway, the GOP will fade into irrelevance well ahead of their (demographic-replacement driven) schedule.

Trump has unleashed a wave of populist nationalism, and that genie is not going back in the bottle.

How do you look at a post-Trump election defeat and pick out which policies caused his campaign to fail? Are Republicans really going to say "Shoot, if only we had appealed more to free market voters, we might have gotten 2% more of the people that went to Gary Johnson?"

I think they're just going to look at Trump and the laundry list of stuff he's done that would have ruined any other candidate and assume it caught up to him. Same story with Hillary and the Democrats. There's going to be little information to be gleaned from defeat in this election.



Now, there's plenty to read into why he's gotten as much support as he has. I don't know how much it'll change the arc of Republican politics, kind of depends on how he does.
post #4185 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

How do you look at a post-Trump election defeat and pick out which policies caused his campaign to fail? Are Republicans really going to say "Shoot, if only we had appealed more to free market voters, we might have gotten 2% more of the people that went to Gary Johnson?"

I think they're just going to look at Trump and the laundry list of stuff he's done that would have ruined any other candidate and assume it caught up to him. Same story with Hillary and the Democrats. There's going to be little information to be gleaned from defeat in this election.



Now, there's plenty to read into why he's gotten as much support as he has. I don't know how much it'll change the arc of Republican politics, kind of depends on how he does.
They're going to totally disavow Trump as a candidate they never wanted or supported. He's just some guy who was't really a conservative and who hijacked the party. His candidacy was a fluke/Obama's fault. Then they'll move on.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field