Let’s get down to brass tacks ...

[Doc Brown]

30 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I tend to disagree with that, on two points.  1) In my experience, most casual voters aren't versed enough in constitutional issues to really worry about SCOTUS nominations, and most of the seriously politically active electorate already have decided who they want nominating Justices...so it just doesn't tend to be a swing issue, because swing voters don't pay it much attention, because if they did they wouldn't be swing voters.  And 2) The general assholiness of everyone involved in filling Scalia's seat (yes, including McConnell - he was well within his Constitutional rights, but it was still a complete dick move) made the issue pretty much a wash to many people.  There was no particular reason to think Trump would make any decent sort of appointment  - remember how many were pleasantly surprised he didn't nominate a complete clown?

 

I could be wrong, though...it's a topic - the role of filling the SCOTUS bench in electoral politics - that none of us here are truly objective on, being that we're all more politically active and aware than average (even if the awareness of some of us is !@#$ed sideways - yes, gatorman, I'm talking about you).  Our anecdotal evidence carries that bias.  And I'm not even sure it's possible to do a truly honest statistical study on the topic, since even poll questions carry an inherent bias (in that even asking someone if they consider Supreme Court nominations in their vote automatically makes them think about Supreme Court nominations and biases their response.)

You could be right.  It's difficult to measure and anecdotal evidence is all you can really turn to.  A few family members of mine justified voting for Trump because of the empty Supreme Court seat and we don't even live in a swing state.  The Republican primary debates drew huge ratings compared to previous election cycles partly because of Trump. I'd argue that the average voter was more educated when it came to the current state of the Supreme Court compared to previous presidential elections after Scalia passed away.  I don't think it swung the election, but I wouldn't minimize its impact.

[KD in CA]

On 4/30/2018 at 6:22 AM, Juror#8 said:

 

1. Straight white male voters were attracted to Trump out of fear that their social significance keeps dwindling.

 

2. The same voters felt that Trump was their best hope to stop other segments/demographics (blacks, women, gay, everyone else) in society from gradually displacing them. 

 

3. Trump understands the perceived suffering and devolution that is happening in the white male community. 

 

I’m not positing anything. There is no thesis here to discern. This is based on a conversation that I recently had with a republican state legislator and an article that I recently read. 

 

Just want to know if you think that of the three points listed above, the preponderance is mostly true or mostly false. 

 

*This is a question about identity politics and not an appraisal of his current economic record. 

 

I realize this is the far left wing "party line" -- especially as used to keep the black voters in line, but frankly I'm surprised you are regurgitating such ignorant nonsense.  You have always seems more intelligent that that.

 

Try this, Trump won because:

 

1.  He ran against a hateful criminal whose entire personality drips with insincerity and distain toward anyone outsider her own social circle that is so obvious she may as well wear a sign around her neck that says "If you're not from the New York-Washington corridor or California, I consider you a worthless hick."   Honestly, he ran against the worst and least likeable candidate in history. You can go down the list of losing Democratic Presidental candidates and every one would have wiped the floor with Trump.   Gore - yes, Kerry - yes, Mondale - yes, Dukakis - well....he was pretty pathetic!

 

2.  Because of #1, middle class voters were willing to listen to anyone who would talk to them.  Also, swing voters like change, and they were kinda tired of the arrogant Democrat who had been on their TV news every night for the last 8 years.

 

3.  People are tired of the left's PC bullsh-- and their campaign of intolerance, and not just white people.

[row_33]

Liberals, please pack it in on Enlightenment tactics to force everyone to think the same self-righteous thoughts as you.

 

it’s long over.... we have gone thru a Modern, postmodern and post-postmodern age and you are still trapped in a prison of forcing your “logical” life on others, which failed hundreds of years ago

 

we laugh at you

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2018 by row_33

[Juror#8]

21 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Juror, a couple of quick questions before I engage:  Do you think it may be fair to ask if impressions inside the Beltway, and likewise impressions of the left leaning coastals, of what motivates voters in flyover country are accurate, or if they operate within the prism of their own biases?

 

And if that is fair, and I personally think it is though I won't presume to answer for you, wouldn't that largely invalidate those impressions?

 

I think there is certainly an impression amongst the coastal electorate that the folks in the flyover part of the country vote nearly exclusively based on faith, significant exceptionalism shown towards a nuclear familial constitution, being culturally monolithic, an outmoded conception around values, xenophobia, and a myopic attachment to firearms. 

 

I think if you cornered a handful of folks at Starbucks downtown, they would probably say most - certainly a preponderance - from West V to Idaho and some areas south, vote along with those contexts in mind. 

13 hours ago, bdutton said:

bull ****.  A LOT of former democrat and a lot of independent voters from the swing states (i.e. flyover country) had to have opted for Trump.

 

Face it.  Hillary was a WORSE candidate than Trump.  His faults were moral.  Her faults were PROFESSIONAL.

 

Not sure we disagree. But we may be having two different conversations. Read through the thread including what others have contributed. This isn’t a “trying to convince you of anything” thread. 

[row_33]

11 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

 

I think there is certainly an impression amongst the coastal electorate that the folks in the flyover part of the country vote nearly exclusively based on faith, significant exceptionalism shown towards a nuclear familial constitution, being culturally monolithic, an outmoded conception around values, xenophobia, and a myopic attachment to firearms. 

 

I think if you cornered a handful of folks at Starbucks downtown, they would probably say most - certainly a preponderance - from West V to Idaho and some areas south, vote along with those contexts in mind. 

 

Not sure we disagree. But we may be having two different conversations. Read through the thread including what others have contributed. This isn’t a “trying to convince you of anything” thread. 

 

 

who honestly has the time and energy to read through this, your posts are good and worthy....

 

 

 

[Juror#8]

9 hours ago, KD in CA said:

 

I realize this is the far left wing "party line" -- especially as used to keep the black voters in line, but frankly I'm surprised you are regurgitating such ignorant nonsense.  You have always seems more intelligent that that.

 

Try this, Trump won because:

 

1.  He ran against a hateful criminal whose entire personality drips with insincerity and distain toward anyone outsider her own social circle that is so obvious she may as well wear a sign around her neck that says "If you're not from the New York-Washington corridor or California, I consider you a worthless hick."   Honestly, he ran against the worst and least likeable candidate in history. You can go down the list of losing Democratic Presidental candidates and every one would have wiped the floor with Trump.   Gore - yes, Kerry - yes, Mondale - yes, Dukakis - well....he was pretty pathetic!

 

2.  Because of #1, middle class voters were willing to listen to anyone who would talk to them.  Also, swing voters like change, and they were kinda tired of the arrogant Democrat who had been on their TV news every night for the last 8 years.

 

3.  People are tired of the left's PC bullsh-- and their campaign of intolerance, and not just white people.

 

Whats up man. 

 

Give the thread a read again. I wasn’t making any assertions. I was opening up some dialog based on a recent conversation. I try to clearly say that to avoid the red meat responses. 

 

To be sure ... 

 

I agree with 90% of your point #1. 90% or your point #2 and 50% of your point #3. 

 

Hopefully you read read my thread again and some of the responses and note what I was endeavoring to do with this thread. 

 

 

[IDBillzFan]

10 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

 

I think there is certainly an impression amongst the coastal electorate that the folks in the flyover part of the country vote nearly exclusively based on faith, significant exceptionalism shown towards a nuclear familial constitution, being culturally monolithic, an outmoded conception around values, xenophobia, and a myopic attachment to firearms. 

 

I think if you cornered a handful of folks at Starbucks downtown, they would probably say most - certainly a preponderance - from West V to Idaho and some areas south, vote along with those contexts in mind. 

I believe where coastal elites are concerned, your assessment of their perceptions is right on. 

 

Their perceptions are wrong, but you assessment is correct.

 

Thankfully, the coastal elites aren't smart enough to stop saying out loud what perceptions float in their noggins. Public comments like bitter, gun-clingers, deplorables...they hear them. Unfortunately they (the deplorable clingers) never had a chance with Obama because (1) John McCain was a terrible candidate and (2) the black vote came out in ways it would never come out for Hillary.

 

Unfortunately for these coastal elites, Hillary was no Obama, yet they continued to embrace the far-left belief that something other than their words, candidate or ideology cost Hillary the election. They will forever refuse to accept their responsibility for their condescending attitude toward anyone who is not them.

 

I urge them to continue with Hillary on this path of denial. It's terrific.

Edited May 2, 2018 by LABillzFan

[Juror#8]

5 hours ago, row_33 said:

Liberals, please pack it in on Enlightenment tactics to force everyone to think the same self-righteous thoughts as you.

 

it’s long over.... we have gone thru a Modern, postmodern and post-postmodern age and you are still trapped in a prison of forcing your “logical” life on others, which failed hundreds of years ago

 

we laugh at you

 

 

 

 

 

 

As me as in like “me me”?

 

Laugh at me? As in “me me”?

 

Because you may may have missed where this thread was going. This wasn’t a thesis thread or a position piece to convince someone of some strongly held frame reference. 

 

Not aimed at you necessarily now, but I wonder how much is missed out in the world and how much people jump to conclusions based on what they read or hear in the news when something like this post draws reflexive ire. 

 

There is a place for conversation that isn’t slanted. It has to start somewhere. And there is admittedly some passion in the subject matter. I read something and wanted to hear thoughts and opinions. I did everything to flatten the starting point as a basis for discussion and not as a “I’m right and you’re wrong.” 

 

Interested to hear your thoughts now. 

[row_33]

26 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

 

As me as in like “me me”?

 

Laugh at me? As in “me me”?

 

Because you may may have missed where this thread was going. This wasn’t a thesis thread or a position piece to convince someone of some strongly held frame reference. 

 

Not aimed at you necessarily now, but I wonder how much is missed out in the world and how much people jump to conclusions based on what they read or hear in the news when something like this post draws reflexive ire. 

 

There is a place for conversation that isn’t slanted. It has to start somewhere. And there is admittedly some passion in the subject matter. I read something and wanted to hear thoughts and opinions. I did everything to flatten the starting point as a basis for discussion and not as a “I’m right and you’re wrong.” 

 

Interested to hear your thoughts now. 

 

you can't control the way a thread goes, it's an ice floe of a joke of a section off a mediocre football board

 

we aren't your lab rats...

 

who cares if people jump to conclusions, they have lives to live and they don't sit around contemplating their navel 95% of the day

 

you don't control the parameters of a chat, people don't sit there and have a "conversation" totally disinterested in the outcome, they have little precious time to piss away but sometimes can be coerced to learn for school or work or under threat

 

 

[Juror#8]

7 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

you can't control the way a thread goes, it's an ice floe of a joke of a section off a mediocre football board

 

we aren't your lab rats...

 

who cares if people jump to conclusions, they have lives to live and they don't sit around contemplating their navel 95% of the day

 

you don't control the parameters of a chat, people don't sit there and have a "conversation" totally disinterested in the outcome, they have little precious time to piss away but sometimes can be coerced to learn for school or work or under threat

 

 

 

Why are you the way that you are?

[DC Tom]

9 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

you can't control the way a thread goes, it's an ice floe of a joke of a section off a mediocre football board

 

we aren't your lab rats...

 

who cares if people jump to conclusions, they have lives to live and they don't sit around contemplating their navel 95% of the day

 

you don't control the parameters of a chat, people don't sit there and have a "conversation" totally disinterested in the outcome, they have little precious time to piss away but sometimes can be coerced to learn for school or work or under threat

 

 

 

He can't control it, you're right.  And he should understand conversations drift (and he probably does - he's not stupid).

 

But if he wants to try to keep a conversation he started focused on the topic he chose, he is by all means entitled to.

[row_33]

9 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

He can't control it, you're right.  And he should understand conversations drift (and he probably does - he's not stupid).

 

But if he wants to try to keep a conversation he started focused on the topic he chose, he is by all means entitled to.

 

sure, whatever.

 

 

but those carrying on for four pages aren't really worth it to someone like Juror 8.

 

that's the irony of it.....

 

 

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

 

Why are you the way that you are?

Uh, He's Canadian?

14 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

you can't control the way a thread goes, it's an ice floe of a joke of a section off a mediocre football board

 

we aren't your lab rats...

 

who cares if people jump to conclusions, they have lives to live and they don't sit around contemplating their navel 95% of the day

 

you don't control the parameters of a chat, people don't sit there and have a "conversation" totally disinterested in the outcome, they have little precious time to piss away but sometimes can be coerced to learn for school or work or under threat

 

 

Ah, but you have not considered what gator does with his time.

[Juror#8]

6 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

sure, whatever.

 

 

but those carrying on for four pages aren't really worth it to someone like Juror 8.

 

that's the irony of it.....

 

 

 

Sounds good man. 

 

The issue is not about your contribution. It’s about your effort to mischaracterize my original post and the point of this thread via your wayward reply. 

5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Uh, He's Canadian?

 

I guess I was more addressing his mental shortcomings. But if you’ve ever seen “Canadians Bacon” then that might just explain it.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Juror#8

[Juror#8]

52 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

I believe where coastal elites are concerned, your assessment of their perceptions is right on. 

 

Their perceptions are wrong, but you assessment is correct.

 

Thankfully, the coastal elites aren't smart enough to stop saying out loud what perceptions float in their noggins. Public comments like bitter, gun-clingers, deplorables...they hear them. Unfortunately they (the deplorable clingers) never had a chance with Obama because (1) John McCain was a terrible candidate and (2) the black vote came out in ways it would never come out for Hillary.

 

Unfortunately for these coastal elites, Hillary was no Obama, yet they continued to embrace the far-left belief that something other than their words, candidate or ideology cost Hillary the election. They will forever refuse to accept their responsibility for their condescending attitude toward anyone who is not them.

 

I urge them to continue with Hillary on this path of denial. It's terrific.

 

So for 2020, do you feel that the only hurdle between Democrats and the presidency is a (nationally) politically untainted candidate, outside the machine, who avoids controversial statements about middle-America?

 

So “yes” to a Terry McAullife, a John Delaney (who will run), an Andrew Cuomo, or a Corey Booker?

 

And basically “no” to Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden or a Bernie Sanders?

 

This question is admittedly tough because the “hold your nose and vote for Trump” crowd will now (for better or for worse) be able to stand on his four-year record the next time the ballot box opens. 

Edited May 2, 2018 by Juror#8

[Deranged Rhino]

11 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

 

So for 2020, do you feel that the only hurdle between Democrats and the presidency is a (nationally) politically untainted candidate, outside the machine, who avoids controversial statements about middle-America?

 

So “yes” to a Terry McAullife, a John Delaney (who will run), an Andrew Cuomo, or a Corey Booker?

 

And basically “no” to Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden or a Bernie Sanders?

 

This question is admittedly tough because the “hold your nose and vote for Trump” crowd will now (for better or for worse) be able to stand on his four-year record the next time the ballot box opens. 

 

McAullife, Corey Booker, nor Cuomo fit that bill. If either were any more part of the machine they'd literally be sprockets. 

 

The Democratic party won't have a viable candidate in 2020.

[IDBillzFan]

6 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

 

So for 2020, do you feel that the only hurdle between Democrats and the presidency is a (nationally) politically untainted candidate, outside the machine, who avoids controversial statements about middle-America?

 

So “yes” to a Terry McAullife, a John Delaney (who will run), an Andrew Cuomo, or a Corey Booker?

 

And basically “no” to Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden or a Bernie Sanders?

 

This question is admittedly tough because the “hold your nose and vote for Trump” crowd will now (for better or for worse) be able to stand on his four-year record the next time the ballot box opens. 

 

I think the "hold your nose" crowd will still show up for Trump in 2020 (assuming he runs) because even though Hillary likely won't make it in a primary, the left will ensure whomever it is makes their case as a devout progressive, with 'free' stuff for everyone while talking about liars and vagina grabbers. They will likely look like Booker but sound like Sanders and Warren, and while the left would love that (because they could again throw out the racism card), the right will step up because regardless of what anyone wants to believe about racism, I think the middle of the country simply hates the idea of handouts. Obama shot the wad on entitlement campaigning and they won't tolerate it again.

 

I think Cuomo would get killed, as would Jerry Brown. Coastal elites are a big problem for the left, and those two are their poster children.

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

McAullife, Corey Booker, nor Cuomo fit that bill. If either were any more part of the machine they'd literally be sprockets. 

 

The Democratic party won't have a viable candidate in 2020.

That's right! Anyone it is and you guys will say, "Sure Trump is worse that anything that has ever existed, except for Joe/Jane Democrat who is even worse" 

[keepthefaith]

16 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

McAullife, Corey Booker, nor Cuomo fit that bill. If either were any more part of the machine they'd literally be sprockets. 

 

The Democratic party won't have a viable candidate in 2020.

 

I think Booker can be very viable.  He's a terrific speaker and communicator and if he stays quiet over the next year or so he can distance himself a bit from some of his hard left past statements and positions.  He'll need to adopt a more centrist and rust belt friendly platform than Hillary, Obama and some others.  In other words, he'll have to run a bit away from what might be some of his true core values.  He's got the presentation skills though. 

Edited May 2, 2018 by keepthefaith

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, keepthefaith said:

 

I think Booker can be very viable.  He's a terrific speaker and communicator and if he stays quiet over the next year or so he can distance himself a bit from some of his hard left past statements and positions.  He'll need to adopt a more centrist and rust belt platform than Hillary, Obama and some others.  In other words, he'll have to run a bit away from what might be some of his true core values.  He's got the presentation skills though. 

 

Without question. He was built to be a 2024 candidate post Hillary. 

 

If he survives what's to come, he has the skill - but he's very much a machine candidate. He likely won't come out of the next three years unscathed. The entire field will look different soon (on both sides of the political spectrum). Lots of big names we think of as safe today are not going to be viable in 2 years.