Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
So Bernie has another what, month left in the election, more or less?

Sounds about right.

How many months now have we been saying the same about Trump?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
How many months now have we been saying the same about Trump?

That’s true, though there’s one important difference. With Trump people have been expecting, or hoping, that his polling numbers would change, his 30% of the vote would disappear. Whereas with Sanders his defeat comes if the polling numbers stay exactly as they are, in most states he’s also polling about 30%, but that puts him well behind Clinton.

Polls fluctuate, especially primary polls, of course. A poll last month doesn’t mean a hell of a lot for a primary held next month, and all that. Just pointing out the difference between the expectation of Trump’s defeat, and expectation of Sanders’.

And for the record, I really did except Trump’s support would have fallen away long before Iowa.

 sebster wrote:

And for the record, I really did except Trump’s support would have fallen away long before Iowa.

Just last week, at my local GW, there was a rather loud guy who apparently the manager knew... so he's a "regular" or at the very least, a recurring customer.... At one point during the conversation... ironically it was a conversation about comic book villains or star wars or something, he randomly chimes in, "Yep, that's why I'm voting for Trump... Fething Obama hates the US, Feth Obama, blah blah blah usual right wing Tea Bagger anti-obama rhetoric"


While his back was turned to us, still on this rant, the manager and I made I contact with that shrug of "wtf, dude"


So yeah... While most of us expected Trumps support to have fallen away by now, he really is an indictment of the still present levels of crazy, stupid, and racist people in the country. I think that in contrast, Sanders' campaign, "aided" mostly by the young, 18-29 or so age ranges, whom many people would still consider idealistic and naive, shows that while some may indeed by naive and idealistic, we've paid enough attention to the goings on around us, politically, economically, etc. and "we" don't like what we see, and Sanders delivers a message that would be a clear change from that.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

And for the record, I really did except Trump’s support would have fallen away long before Iowa.

Just last week, at my local GW, there was a rather loud guy who apparently the manager knew... so he's a "regular" or at the very least, a recurring customer.... At one point during the conversation... ironically it was a conversation about comic book villains or star wars or something, he randomly chimes in, "Yep, that's why I'm voting for Trump... Fething Obama hates the US, Feth Obama, blah blah blah usual right wing Tea Bagger anti-obama rhetoric"


While his back was turned to us, still on this rant, the manager and I made I contact with that shrug of "wtf, dude"


So yeah... While most of us expected Trumps support to have fallen away by now, he really is an indictment of the still present levels of crazy, stupid, and racist people in the country. I think that in contrast, Sanders' campaign, "aided" mostly by the young, 18-29 or so age ranges, whom many people would still consider idealistic and naive, shows that while some may indeed by naive and idealistic, we've paid enough attention to the goings on around us, politically, economically, etc. and "we" don't like what we see, and Sanders delivers a message that would be a clear change from that.

My thought:

Europe has many political parties and people are used to fringe parties, so they have seen a rise in the radical right-wing parties.
We have our two-party system, so instead of the rise of a right-wing party we got the rise of Trump.

 d-usa wrote:
My thought:

Europe has many political parties and people are used to fringe parties, so they have seen a rise in the radical right-wing parties.

In Australia we’ve seen the rise of PUP, based around Clive Palmer. He’s like a slightly dorkier, much less racist version of Trump. On economic issues he’s much like Trump, with a bunch of ideas that are more right wing than left wing, but are more populist than anything else. It looks like his impact on politics was a one time deal, most people they got elected to parliament have left the party and become independents, his party’s appeal in polls has faded, and on a personal level Palmer may possibly be going bankrupt.

There’s also been the formation of a few explicitly racist parties, and the votes they’ve gotten have been pretty shameful, but not enough to gain any power in federal or state parliament.

We have our two-party system, so instead of the rise of a right-wing party we got the rise of Trump.

Not just Trump but Sanders also. I’m not saying Sanders is bad like Trump is bad, just that both Sanders and Trump are riding a wave of anti-establishment feeling. In the two parties it’s playing out very differently, in a way that I think is quite telling about where each party is at.

Within the Democrats there appears a feeling that progress has been too little, too slow. Wall St reforms weren’t enough, healthcare reform should have been single payer and so on. Clinton has inherited the mantle of steady, achievable progress that was more or less established by her husband and then refined by Obama. But among the base, especially younger voters, there’s a demand for more, sooner. And those people really like what Sanders is saying.

In the Republican party it seems quite different. The standard, ‘establishment’ position has been a mix of pro-business policies and conservative/religious social positions, with a bit of dog whistle racism thrown in for good measure. Trump has tipped that on its head, running really aggressively on racism, while putting up populist economic positions that are often in direct odds with Republican orthodox positions. It’s been quite interesting to see a Republican talk about improving social security and see his numbers improve.

Mind you, it’s hard to tell exactly what part of Trump’s nonsense is driving his appeal. Do voters respond to the racism, or just the fact that it makes Trump ‘outspoken’? Are they responding to his economic policies at all, given they’re barely explained and frequently contradictory? Is anything he’s said made any difference, or is it all just a cult of personality thing? So I might be reading way more in to this than is really there. But if his actual policies are cutting through, it says some interesting things about where the values of the Republican base are really at.

 sebster wrote:
Mind you, it’s hard to tell exactly what part of Trump’s nonsense is driving his appeal. Do voters respond to the racism, or just the fact that it makes Trump ‘outspoken’?

They respond to both. There are a lot of racist people in this country, and I'm not even talking about the casual, every day racism on display just about everywhere. I live in northern Virginia, about 35 miles northwest of Washington, DC, and the amount of good old fashion, flat out racism I encounter every day (especially at work) is truly staggering. The most annoying part of it all (besides how disgusting it is), is the assumption that because I'm white I must agree with all of the repulsive things they say. It's actually gotten bad enough that I have stopped hanging out with the people I work with in morning before and after my shift because I can't stand the constant barrage of vile racism. It's especially odd because this area has been trending blue over the last few election cycles (the state went to Obama in 2008 and 2012).

Are they responding to his economic policies at all, given they’re barely explained and frequently contradictory? Is anything he’s said made any difference, or is it all just a cult of personality thing?

Definitely more of a cult of personality thing. Just listen to what his supporters say on TV: "He's not scared of political correctness!" and, "He can't be influenced by anyone!" and, "He's going to stop the 'pussification' of America!" and, "He tells it like it is!"

The only actual "policy" his supporters every really talk about is rounding up and deporting all of the illegal aliens, which of course is impossible to actually do.

I witnessed the real side of Donald Trump a few years back, when he was building his golf course in Scotland, and trying to bully people into leaving their homes, even when they didn't want to sell. Trump tried every dirty trick in the book to get those people out.

Thankfully, they stuck to their guns, but Trump burnt a lot of bridges in this part of the world.

Most people on dakka are probably aware of the 'real' Trump, but I'm mentioning this as I feel it's important that Americans should be aware of these things before they vote. Trump is nothing more than a loudmouth bully, and IMO, would spell disaster for the USA if God forbide, he gets the keys to 1600.

sebster wrote:
Mind you, it’s hard to tell exactly what part of Trump’s nonsense is driving his appeal. Do voters respond to the racism, or just the fact that it makes Trump ‘outspoken’? Are they responding to his economic policies at all, given they’re barely explained and frequently contradictory? Is anything he’s said made any difference, or is it all just a cult of personality thing? So I might be reading way more in to this than is really there. But if his actual policies are cutting through, it says some interesting things about where the values of the Republican base are really at.

I just glanced at it, but the New York Times this morning had exit polling showing that 65% of New Hampshire Republicans who voted for Trump "most valued" the quality of "telling it like it is."

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:They respond to both. There are a lot of racist people in this country, and I'm not even talking about the casual, every day racism on display just about everywhere. I live in northern Virginia, about 35 miles northwest of Washington, DC, and the amount of good old fashion, flat out racism I encounter every day (especially at work) is truly staggering. The most annoying part of it all (besides how disgusting it is), is the assumption that because I'm white I must agree with all of the repulsive things they say. It's actually gotten bad enough that I have stopped hanging out with the people I work with in morning before and after my shift because I can't stand the constant barrage of vile racism. It's especially odd because this area has been trending blue over the last few election cycles (the state went to Obama in 2008 and 2012).

I also live in northern Virginia (Old Town, to be exact), and my experience has been markedly different.

This area isn't just trending blue, by the way; it's deep blue. Its growth is the only thing turning Virginia blue in turn. NOVA and Richmond go blue, everywhere else is red.

Seaward wrote:

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:They respond to both. There are a lot of racist people in this country, and I'm not even talking about the casual, every day racism on display just about everywhere. I live in northern Virginia, about 35 miles northwest of Washington, DC, and the amount of good old fashion, flat out racism I encounter every day (especially at work) is truly staggering. The most annoying part of it all (besides how disgusting it is), is the assumption that because I'm white I must agree with all of the repulsive things they say. It's actually gotten bad enough that I have stopped hanging out with the people I work with in morning before and after my shift because I can't stand the constant barrage of vile racism. It's especially odd because this area has been trending blue over the last few election cycles (the state went to Obama in 2008 and 2012).

I also live in northern Virginia (Old Town, to be exact), and my experience has been markedly different.

This area isn't just trending blue, by the way; it's deep blue. Its growth is the only thing turning Virginia blue in turn. NOVA and Richmond go blue, everywhere else is red.

By Old Town, do you mean Alexandria? If so, there is a huge difference between that city and where I live in Loudoun County. The 8th District (which covers Alexandria) has been Democrat for years, while Loudoun was firmly Republican for last fifty years until Obama won in 2008 (the only exception was 1964, when LBJ won). Even now, the county is run primarily by Republicans.

 d-usa wrote:
My thought:

Europe has many political parties and people are used to fringe parties, so they have seen a rise in the radical right-wing parties.
We have our two-party system, so instead of the rise of a right-wing party we got the rise of Trump.

I would like there to be more than two mainstream parties to choose from, so that way people can vote for a party/candidate that actually matches their politics better and don't have to worry so much about other voices in the party taking over after the election. I do not see this changing anytime soon though. For either party to break into smaller groups would had the keys to this country to the other group.

The City of Alexandria not just blue but a deep, deep blue. Some cities and counties down in the Hampton Roads regions are blue too. Virginia Beach is pink (mostly Republican, but enough Democrat votes to turn the color a light shade) though.

Red or Blue, Right or Left, there are racists on both ends. I'm only referring to "whites" in this regard. I'm not getting into the other colors can be racist issue.

I live near Mount Vernon (home of George Washington) just south of Alexandria. There are a large number of white folk some of whom, when they think we're alone and they don't know my wife is Asian, let down their guard a bit and go full racist at times. It is interesting how the focus over the decades has changed from complaining and joking about blacks to complaining about other dark skinned people or sometimes even Asians. At work, in my office there is a reason I have many pictures of my wife and kids in prominent places. Stops the stupid from coming out, at least full on racist stupid. Although some assume I'm a liberal because of my marriage choice, which to me is just as racist because of the implication that I married to show some sort of liberal support.

I make it a point to people on the edge of talking stupid or to try and bring them back that we're all Americans. If you don't think so, talk to some 9/11 survivors or anyone that's served overseas in the Military. Some might get racist between us but to outsiders an American is an American and to many non-Americans we represent evil irregardless of the color of our skin.

Back on topic, the Virginia primaries will be fun to see play out. The people I know who've expressed their opinions are all over the list of candidates. Far right wing loves Cruz, far left is obviously for Bernie, Clinton is VERY popular, Clinton is VERY hated as well by a number of women I know too.Some would say they will vote for Bernie in the primary say they will vote Republican in the national election if Clinton is the Democratic candidate, unless it's Cruz on the Republican ticket. Trump is probably popular but I don't know many of those supporters. Given the choice I know if pushed, my Republican friends say they will rally behind anyone on the Republican ticket if Clinton wins the nomination. Alternately, if Cruz gets the Republican nod, it will light a fire and energize the liberal base in ways I don't think the Republicans understand. To liberals (that I've talked to) Cruz is a much larger threat to America than Trump could ever be.

Both Cruz and Trump would galvanize the opposition.

It's really extraordinary how Rubio self-destructed in that debate. There's been harsh press about his nervousness and anxiety, inexperience, empty suit, etc, and I dont see him overcoming it. He's done in this race.

 jasper76 wrote:
Both Cruz and Trump would galvanize the opposition.

It's really extraordinary how Rubio self-destructed in that debate. There's been harsh press about his nervousness and anxiety, inexperience, empty suit, etc, and I dont see him overcoming it. He's done in this race.

Sanders and Clinton would galvanize the opposition as well, though.

And yeah, it's a shame about Rubio. I officially don't have a favorite anymore. Might as well start stockpiling Trump bumper stickers.

I really hope Rubio can get himself back on track.

Regarding Trump/Cruz vs. Clinton/Sanders; Galvanizing Republicans and right leaning independents won't overcome motivated Democrats and liberals at the voting booth. It doesn't work the other way around. Motivated Republicans vs. motivated Democrats = Democrat win I suspect.
Democrats have learned that lesson well. I think they'd be thrilled to have either Trump or Cruz running against them. I'd prefer a Rubio or Kasich on the Republican side, then I wouldn't feel like I'd have to hold my nose to vote.

I'm not a supporter, but I was pleasantly surprised to see Kasich do a bit better. He's stayed on an optimisitic message, and I'd rather have an optimistic leader, and one that actually seems to like Americans. Up until now, I doubted if his approach would have any substantive appeal in the primaries.

Don't usually take much interest in American politics but I really hope you guys vote in trump at least he doesn't mince his words. Uk could do with someone like him.

I think Trump has as much chance to motivate as demotivate Democrats. Cruz would only light a fire as for liberals he is far worse than Trump.

Funny, I know quiet a few Trump supporters and not one knows anything about what he is running on issue wise outside of immigration and anti-Muslim rhetoric.

I guy I know was trying to tell me that Trump is the best because he doesn't pander, especially to Israel. When I showed him how wrong and ridiculous that was, he simply picked the goalposts up and moved to a new stadium. I have personally found that Trump supporters project onto Trump like a Twilight protagonist.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I would like there to be more than two mainstream parties to choose from, so that way people can vote for a party/candidate that actually matches their politics better and don't have to worry so much about other voices in the party taking over after the election. I do not see this changing anytime soon though. For either party to break into smaller groups would had the keys to this country to the other group.

While I obviously don't speak for everyone, but I think a lot of people want more than two parties. Personally, I think I'd like a political landscape/legislative body that looked somewhat like Germany's politics. When I was there, there were a bunch of parties, ranging from conservative to liberal, there was a green party, a pirate party, more over socialist/communist party, etc.

Each party that gained a certain number/percentage of votes had a number of seats in their version of the house. It may not be a perfectly balanced system, but I'd like to think that everyone has their voice represented and heard in the legislature. What we have today means that if you're a person who has views that run a bit contrary to "party lines" your voice is most definitely not represented in congress (much less if you're a poor person, you definitely aren't represented), and you're often ostracized as a RINO or a DINO. The problem I have with the RINO/DINO view, is that it should be entirely possible to believe in "democrat" views on social issues, while siding more "republican" in financial matters, and vice versa.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I think Trump has as much chance to motivate as demotivate Democrats. Cruz would only light a fire as for liberals he is far worse than Trump.

Funny, I know quiet a few Trump supporters and not one knows anything about what he is running on issue wise outside of immigration and anti-Muslim rhetoric.

I guy I know was trying to tell me that Trump is the best because he doesn't pander, especially to Israel. When I showed him how wrong and ridiculous that was, he simply picked the goalposts up and moved to a new stadium. I have personally found that Trump supporters project onto Trump like a Twilight protagonist.

Yep, as in my example above, most Trump "supporters" I've conversed with are basically "Obama is bad! At least Trump loves 'Murica!!"

Calling it like it is, one of the other favorites of Trump supporters. Of course when you point out how his "calling it like it is," is mostly made of flat lies and completely unfounded "facts" they just burn the goalpost down and run lol.

Being against Trump is the only thing that has ever lost me social media friends lol. Either they disapprove of their echo chamber disturbance or feel like I'm insulting their intelligence. For which I disavow that feeling by directly insulting it. Funny how when you, "call it like it is," with Trump supporters or don't act PC, they get bent out of shape.

There are no Clinton supporters on my social media so I never get the chance lambast her . Its just Bernie, Trump and Cruz lol.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I think Trump has as much chance to motivate as demotivate Democrats. Cruz would only light a fire as for liberals he is far worse than Trump.

Funny, I know quiet a few Trump supporters and not one knows anything about what he is running on issue wise outside of immigration and anti-Muslim rhetoric.

I guy I know was trying to tell me that Trump is the best because he doesn't pander, especially to Israel. When I showed him how wrong and ridiculous that was, he simply picked the goalposts up and moved to a new stadium. I have personally found that Trump supporters project onto Trump like a Twilight protagonist.

That's not the worst quality to have if you want to get elected. I recall lofty but vague talk and no political accomplishments of note working out pretty well for the junior senator from Illinois.

Sword Of Caliban wrote:
Don't usually take much interest in American politics but I really hope you guys vote in trump at least he doesn't mince his words. Uk could do with someone like him.

I'll disagree. The UK doesn't need any more politicians who are quasi-fascist racists. We've got half of the Tory party filling that role already.

Sword Of Caliban wrote:
Don't usually take much interest in American politics but I really hope you guys vote in trump at least he doesn't mince his words. Uk could do with someone like him.

Can you name any proposed policies of his that appeal to you?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


While I obviously don't speak for everyone, but I think a lot of people want more than two parties. Personally, I think I'd like a political landscape/legislative body that looked somewhat like Germany's politics. When I was there, there were a bunch of parties, ranging from conservative to liberal, there was a green party, a pirate party, more over socialist/communist party, etc.

Germany has two main poltitical parties, a left and a center one, who make up for the largest part of politics and currently, I kid you not, rule together. There is a multitude of other parties, but don't get blinded. Die Grünen aka the green party's main purpose is giving votes to the SPD, the left party, and the FDP, the liberal party, only serves to boost the center party's (CDU) votes. There's an extreme left party (Die Linke) and a rather recent right party (AfD), yet the former plays little to no role, fortunately, and the latter became a stronger force mainly because of the refugee crisis and Germany's apathy in regards to it with people feeling helpless and exploited.

So...yes, there are quite a few parties, but it is far from being as pluralistic as you might think it is. It always boils down to the left (SPD) or center (CDU).

Regarding US politics, if Trump seriously gets president, I'll throw a bonus payment to all people working for me. It will be absolutely hilarious and in the long run, he's the far better pick than any leftist. That goes without saing, tho.

A multi-party system would be a good thing in the USA, if it still had the parliamentary system. Without a parliamentary system, it probably wouldn't work.

American history is littered with 3rd 'parties,' that fell by the wayside, and most of them tended to be single issue anyway.

Guys... Temper your outlook in this NH primary aftermath. Keep in mind that this state is an ultra-Liberal state with an open primary.

The true bellweather imo is South Carolina (and the rest of the southeastern states).

The real story is how Sanders is clobbering Clinton. Sanders beat Clinton is just about every age group too.

 Henry wrote:

Sword Of Caliban wrote:
Don't usually take much interest in American politics but I really hope you guys vote in trump at least he doesn't mince his words. Uk could do with someone like him.

I'll disagree. The UK doesn't need any more politicians who are quasi-fascist racists. We've got half of the Tory party filling that role already.

UKIP stole their thunder years ago, though I admit, the Tories are trying their best to reclaim that mantle.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A multi-party system would be a good thing in the USA, if it still had the parliamentary system. Without a parliamentary system, it probably wouldn't work.

American history is littered with 3rd 'parties,' that fell by the wayside, and most of them tended to be single issue anyway.

We do have a lot of "unofficial" parties.

-Congressional Black Caucus
-Freedom Caucus
-Tea Party
-Chamber of Commerce
-etc...

So, while not a true parlimentarian system, there are many "factions" within each official party.

 whembly wrote:
Guys... Temper your outlook in this NH primary aftermath. Keep in mind that this state is an ultra-Liberal state with an open primary.

The true bellweather imo is South Carolina (and the rest of the southeastern states).

The real story is how Sanders is clobbering Clinton. Sanders beat Clinton is just about every age group too.

I stand by my original prediction that the contest is Clinton's to lose.

Sanders has been speaking a lot about a universal healthcare system, with Britain being used as an example.

Question for you Whembley: would Americans appreciate the government taking more tax money from them to fund a universal healthcare system?

Because that's what happens in Britain. For historical and cultural reasons, the vast majority of people don't mind this. Hell, some people want to pay more, but would it go down well in the USA?

A rhetorical question if ever there was one.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Question for you Whembley: would Americans appreciate the government taking more tax money from them to fund a universal healthcare system?

It's kinda toxic now as evidenced by the opposition to Obamacare and it's the figurative albatross on current Democrat party.

However, the cost is still going higher and higher that at some point, a majority would want the government to "do something".

The only way this happens is if the champions of single-payor gives up other concessions to mollify the opposition. Such as a major tax overhaul (scrap current system).

No one has asked, "what would it take for you to support a single-payor system?" at the cultural level yet.

Maybe ask Bernie Sanders? Would he accept a flat-tax, or simplified less progressive tax structure to gain acquiescence from the opposition to implement Universal Healthcare?

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Question for you Whembley: would Americans appreciate the government taking more tax money from them to fund a universal healthcare system?

It's kinda toxic now as evidenced by the opposition to Obamacare and it's the figurative albatross on current Democrat party.

However, the cost is still going higher and higher that at some point, a majority would want the government to "do something".

The only way this happens is if the champions of single-payor gives up other concessions to mollify the opposition. Such as a major tax overhaul (scrap current system).

No one has asked, "what would it take for you to support a single-payor system?" and the cultural level yet.

Maybe ask Bernie Sanders? Would he accept a flat-tax, or simplified less progressive tax structure to gain acquiescence from the opposition to implement Universal Healthcare?

I'd definitely consider that sort of compromise. Our tax system is horribly complicated.