O/T:- Betting odds for US Election [The USA Politics Thread]

[maddogslater]

What's stoopid fattypie doing in Austin

[BigFatPie]

Not the best link I guess. Try this one instead:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/28/p...ick/index.html

Biden literally said: “Whomever I pick, preferably it will be someone who was of color and/or a different gender."

I'm not interested in getting into an argument about this. My point is simply that demographics almost certainly played a key role in Biden making Harris VP and then her becoming the presidential candidate. Me pointing out that this was likely a factor in their decision-making doesn't make me racist. The left loves to make things about race and gender.

As for the madness of the Dems - I'm talking about policies here primarily. A lot of people clearly feel the same, so it's unsurprising that most people voted for a party offering change and not more of the same. This doesn't mean I like Trump or am happy about the stuff you've mentioned.
.

Again you didn’t say ‘demographics played a part’ in Harris’ nomination, you literally said she was chosen because she was a black woman. Something for which you’ve provided no evidence, and which is a racist allegation. Neither me nor anymore else brought this up, you did, but apparently it’s the left who likes to make everything about race and gender!

I’ve genuinely no idea how you can put issues like the raping, the self confessed ***ual assaults, the 34 felony counts, and the attempts to subvert democracy into a box marked ‘the stuff you’ve mentioned’ and move on seamlessly to discuss how really the main thing is how bad the left is in general, the dems are in particular and how stuff that everyone apparently agreed upon years ago now makes you right wing(what?). What would Donald Trump have to do for you to say, ‘actually this is a line for me, I wouldn’t vote for him even if I had the chance’?

[BigFatPie]

So let's accept your argument that Conservatives voted for Kemi Badenoch because she was better than a poor opponent in Robert Jenrick. I agree entirely that Robert Jenrick is a non-entity, but therein lies the obvious point. Conservative Party members concluded that Kemi was clearly the best candidate and voted for her on merit. A bunch of racists and white supremacists would surely have concluded that they wouldn't vote for a black candidate under any circumstances, even if it meant electing the crap white guy?

I didn't ascribe the entire value set of Martin Luther King to members of the Conservative Party. What I did do was take MLK's most recognised quote and observe that Conservative Party members did indeed judge Kemi Badenoch "by the content of her character" and not "by the colour of her skin", which was the dream he described: i.e. a situation where people are judged on merit not on ethnicity/skin colour.



Of course I'll be honest. I very much doubt MLK would have liked that comment and I thought it was nonsense too for that matter.

If MLK meant what he said about a world where people are judged on the content of their character (i.e. merit) and not by the colour of their skin, he would also surely be dismayed to see identity politics such as skin colour/ethnicity still being made an issue by any major political parties some 60 years on, when his dream was a world where it simply shouldn't be a factor. If he meant what he said and was not a forerunner of some of the hypocritical progressives these days, then I agree with MLK 100% that discrimination is senseless, be it negative or positive. For example, anybody running a business who appoints an employee based on 'identity' rather than ability and merit is an idiot, and will probably lose money and fail.

Similar to Slack Pie, my view of Donald Trump the man is mixed at best - I think he's astonishingly resilient and determined, but I also believe he is a narcissist (as many political leaders are) and I think some of the comments he makes are cringeworthy.

What does seem to be the case is that Trump has tapped into a feeling amongst a huge group of Americans that so-called progressive politics isn't working for them, and I certainly understand and agree with that. Even if we run with your view that a significant element of Trump's support are racist white people, he still would not have reached the White House - twice - without the ultimately decisive support of a growing number of minority group voters who the Democrats have traditionally and perhaps arrogantly regarded as 'their' property. It may well be that their votes for Trump represented more of a rejection of the Democrats rather than an enthusiastic endorsement of the Republican candidate, but if the response of the Democrats is to tell these people how stupid they all are, and what traitors they've all been to their heritage/gender etc., instead of analysing why Democrat policies failed working class voters across the board, then don't be surprised if even more minority group voters cross the political divide in the future.

Trump will only be a factor for a short time longer because of his age and the limitations on Presidential terms, but the movement he has spearheaded is likely to have a far longer shelf-life and could be taken forward by more politically astute leaders.

I donÂ’t think you can infer anything about the result of the Tory leadership election apart from the fact that a majority of the membership wanted Badenoch instead of Jenrick to be leader. If you pushed me IÂ’d say from what I know of Tory members they prefer a strong, possibly authoritarian image which she has successfully cultivated, based on not much imo.

With regards to ethnic minorities voting for Trump, IÂ’d say theyÂ’re as susceptible to right wing populism as every other group, those itÂ’s probably unwise to treat them as a homogeneous group as everyone has their individual reasons for why they vote as they do. People love simplistic answers to complex problems and Trump is as good as anyone else to providing those. Issues like immigration, international trade, the climate emergency, and the size of the state involve trade offs that politicians like Trump pretend donÂ’t exist. I think heÂ’ll be an even bigger disaster than the first time around, IÂ’d have even taken a Tory government over here if it meant a defeat for him..

Just read a different explanation for TrumpÂ’s win which I think is worth sharing;

- [ ] The current prevailing theory about Trump's victory is that most Americans, irked by an unpleasant encounter with inflation, cast an anti-incumbent vote without giving much thought to the consequences of that vote for US democracy. I don't totally buythis whoops! theory. My sense is that, in this era of the Internet, there are millions more fascists in this country than people think, young men in particular. And I believe that many more millions are fascinated by Trump not for his supposed business prowess but for his transparent wish to hurt others. He is an evil guy, a villain— and many Americans are excited by it. Harris and the Democrats, by contrast, are boring, boring, boring. In this sense, the election was like a choice between four more years of church or four years of violent entertainment.
- [ ] Nihilistic consumerism, as much as authoritarianism, prevailed. Of course, political science is not designed to investigate this kind of stuff. The clearest insights we have come from the realm of philosophy and literature. Hannah Arendt and Primo Levi did not rely on focus groups

[slack_pie]

Again you didn’t say ‘demographics played a part’ in Harris’ nomination, you literally said she was chosen because she was a black woman. Something for which you’ve provided no evidence, and which is a racist allegation. Neither me nor anymore else brought this up, you did, but apparently it’s the left who likes to make everything about race and gender!

I’ve genuinely no idea how you can put issues like the raping, the self confessed ***ual assaults, the 34 felony counts, and the attempts to subvert democracy into a box marked ‘the stuff you’ve mentioned’ and move on seamlessly to discuss how really the main thing is how bad the left is in general, the dems are in particular and how stuff that everyone apparently agreed upon years ago now makes you right wing(what?). What would Donald Trump have to do for you to say, ‘actually this is a line for me, I wouldn’t vote for him even if I had the chance’?

You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that I believe the fact that Harris is a black woman was a factor in her first becoming the VP and then being picked as the presidential candidate. It obviously wasn't the only factor, but I believe it was a fairly major one, if not a deciding one. What makes me think that? Well, the fact that the Dems have relentlessly pushed woke identity politics in recent years. Biden said himself he'd prefer a person of colour and/or a woman to be his VP. Why would he say that if ethnicity and gender weren't important to him and his party?

As for me, I genuinely don't care what gender or ethnicity the president (or anyone) is. I'd vote for the person I think is most likely to bring about positive change.

So that's just what I think. If you think something different, that's fine. If you think had Harris been a white man she'd have landed VP and become the Dem's candidate for president, fine. But I don't think so. That doesn't make me racist - like I said, I couldn't care less about gender and ethnicity. If calling me racist makes all this easier for you then fine, fill your boost, but I honestly think that's a poor way to deal with someone who disagrees with you.

To answer your question "What would Donald Trump have to do for you to say, ‘actually this is a line for me, I wouldn’t vote for him even if I had the chance’?"

If he seemed committed to pushing woke identity politics wherever possible, had no plans to secure the Southern border, and looked hell bent on continuing to stoke the fires of foreign wars, I wouldn't vote for him.

Honestly, if I were an American, what he's done in his private less would be of less importance to me than the direction he'd take the country in. I don't look to politicians for moral or spiritual guidance. I look to them to fix stuff and make the country better, safer, and more prosperous for as many people as possible.

[jackal2]

I don’t think you can infer anything about the result of the Tory leadership election apart from the fact that a majority of the membership wanted Badenoch instead of Jenrick to be leader. If you pushed me I’d say from what I know of Tory members they prefer a strong, possibly authoritarian image which she has successfully cultivated, based on not much imo.

I wouldn't disagree that Conservative members prefer a strong, possibly authoritarian leader. I've never been a member of the party but I don't think it's any secret that many party members and supporters regard Margaret Thatcher as their best leader of modern times and she certainly fitted that description. Kemi has openly cited Mrs T as an influence, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if that was a big factor in her success. I've got a higher opinion of Kemi than you have, based on what I've seen so far, but it's certainly true that she is comparatively inexperienced and the acid test of her abilities and ideological strength is yet to come.

With regards to ethnic minorities voting for Trump, I’d say they are as susceptible to right wing populism as every other group, those it’s probably unwise to treat them as a homogeneous group as everyone has their individual reasons for why they vote as they do. People love simplistic answers to complex problems and Trump is as good as anyone else to providing those. Issues like immigration, international trade, the climate emergency, and the size of the state involve trade offs that politicians like Trump pretend don’t exist. I think he’ll be an even bigger disaster than the first time around, I’d have even taken a Tory government over here if it meant a defeat for him..

Just read a different explanation for Trump’s win which I think is worth sharing;

> The current prevailing theory about Trump's victory is that most Americans, irked by an unpleasant encounter with inflation, cast an anti-incumbent vote without giving much thought to the consequences of that vote for US democracy. I don't totally buy this whoops! theory. My sense is that, in this era of the Internet, there are millions more fascists in this country than people think, young men in particular. And I believe that many more millions are fascinated by Trump not for his supposed business prowess but for his transparent wish to hurt others. He is an evil guy, a villain — and many Americans are excited by it. Harris and the Democrats, by contrast, are boring, boring, boring. In this sense, the election was like a choice between four more years of church or four years of violent entertainment.

> Nihilistic consumerism, as much as authoritarianism, prevailed. Of course, political science is not designed to investigate this kind of stuff. The clearest insights we have come from the realm of philosophy and literature. Hannah Arendt and Primo Levi did not rely on focus groups

All of the above theories seem to be united by the fact that they essentially disparage and blame the voters.

The first seems to conclude that they are not especially intelligent people who are therefore susceptible to simplistic "populist" arguments. The second says they're basically a bunch of evil fascists whose numbers have previously been under-estimated. The third seems to imply they are all moral vacuums lost in a haze of consumerist behaviour and instant gratification.

I'm not saying that amongst Trump's voters there were not people of these types, but as you say, they are highly unlikely to be a homogenous whole who all fit the same description.

Two glaring absences from the theories listed above are arguably the most obvious and logical ones: that it was the economy, and a rejection of the progressive obsession with identity politics and 'Woke' culture. Again, these explanations won't fit every voter, but I've certainly heard numerous Trump voters being interviewed and giving these reasons repeatedly.

I suspect that if the Democrats in the aftermath of this election don't look more critically at their own performance and message, but instead go into denial and fall back on the lazy assumption that "the voter was wrong", then they are bound to repeat the same mistakes they've made before. There's an old saying in business that even if the customer is wrong, they're still right, because you can't get anywhere without them.

[upthemaggies]

Two glaring absences from the theories listed above are arguably the most obvious and logical ones: that it was the economy, and a rejection of the progressive obsession with identity politics and 'Woke' culture. Again, these explanations won't fit every voter, but I've certainly heard numerous Trump voters being interviewed and giving these reasons repeatedly.

I'm exaggerating to make the point, but for people who are able to see beyond individual leaders fronting two opposing parties, it would make more sense to vote for somebody with Jimmy Savile vibes who objectively would make life harder for the average nonce in the street than to vote for an Esther Rantzen type figure who has actually made life a whole lot easier for perverts to act with impunity so long as they joyfully express some magic words and wave the magic flag.

As for racism. Encouraging people to perceive criminal behaviour and homicides in black communities as a feature (to be tolerated) and not a defect (to be tackled as you would with any other race) is actual racism in action.

Threatening to freeze people's bank accounts and the loss of their jobs for not wanting to take an experimental gene therapy they don't need is actual fascism.

Freeing domestic abusers and violent criminals from prison to make room for people who write hurty words on X and facebook does not make women and children feel safe.

[Elite_Pie]

The first seems to conclude that they are not especially intelligent people who are therefore susceptible to simplistic "populist" arguments.

I would add being to susceptible to blatant lies as well as populist arguments.

I'm thinking Brexit as an example.

[applepie2]

I would add being to susceptible to blatant lies as well as populist arguments.

I'm thinking Brexit as an example.

The fact is that most people are susceptible to blatant lies. Some on the left have been convinced that men can become women - if you believe that, you'll believe anything. Some on the right have been convinced that Farage cares about anyone other than himself - if you believe that, you'll believe anything. Some Notts supporters believe that we're bound get promoted this season if our manager is any good - if you believe that, you'll believe anything.

[Elite_Pie]

Some on the left have been convinced that men can become women - if you believe that, you'll believe anything.

Never believed that.

Some on the right have been convinced that Farage cares about anyone other than himself - if you believe that, you'll believe anything.

Never believed that in the slightest.

Some Notts supporters believe that we're bound get promoted this season if our manager is any good - if you believe that, you'll believe anything.

I really want to believe that, but I'm still on the fence.

[Lullapie]

Wow! So you think he has "maybe done some illegal acts", but he is the victim of a witch hunt!

I don't think I need to add anything to that.

Childish. I also am aware that JFK, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden did things while they were in office that were illegal and immoral - I don't wet myself worrying about whether they should be prosecuted or not.

However none of the above would bother you, because there are none so blind as those who will not see.