Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump's Card

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Wow. One of Roy Moore's "election experts" is a Holocaust denier.

    Comment


      People are talking about two rather different sources of commentary here.

      SB has correctly identified a strand of commentary that has been extremely prominent in the "mainstream media" (led by the Washington Post and the New York Times) and among "Democratic" advisors, pundits and public officials. They very much are NOT a "critique from the left" in the way that anyone on here would use that term (they might be characterised as such by the likes of Fox News).

      AP has correctly identified a strand of commentary that comes from self-identified progressives who mainly (but not exclusively) were associated with the Sanders campaign, many of whom remain active in Sanders' post-election "movement". This much more of a "critique from the left" and echoes themes that were very prominent in the Sanders campaign.

      These people rarely if ever agreed during the primary campaign, and they don't agree now.

      Clinton lost fairly handily to Sanders in the rust belt.
      I think it is very dangerous to attempt to draw general election trends from primary results, but I also don't see the data supporting that statement (results ordered by date of primary).

      Michigan: BS 49.7% HRC 48.3%
      Illinois: HRC 50.6% BS 48.6%
      Ohio: HRC 56.1% BS 43.1%
      Wisconsin: BS 56.6% HRC 43.1%
      Pennsylvania: HRC 55.6% BS 43.5%
      Indiana: BS 52.5% HRC 47.5%

      Comment


        Yes, I was going to write that the critique that SB has highlighted is very much the type of critique that a HRC employed consultant would come up with to describe the election loss, e.g., it was the deplorables whodunnit. It allows HRC and friends to pretend that they lost because they kept the moral higher ground and refused to stoop to Trump's level. It's the business as usual explanation for what went on.

        The problem is that both the Dems and the Republicans are in the pocket of corporations. Neither party has much of an economic message that appeals to a majority of the electorate. So both parties engage in their own form of American Dream peddling rubbish sold through the lens of their own particular brand of identity politics. Utterly devoid of any real economic message.

        A fair number of white working class people who voted for Donald Trump did so to give a kicking to the establishment. They probably held their nose on all the racist stuff but voted for him anyway for the aforementioned establishment kicking. It is, of course, easier for them to hold their nose and do that when they are not actually black or transgender and won't be on the end of Jeff Sessions' bullshit.

        Comment


          If it were just the economy, then the Democrats ought to have been re-elected. Median household incomes were rising handily, manufacturing back to its pre-crisis level 5 years ago.

          I think you have to allow that other stuff was the problem.

          Comment


            122 pages and people are still proposing monocausal theories.

            I despair.

            Comment


              I have 243 pages. And I was despairing on page 1.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Tubby Isaacs View Post
                If it were just the economy, then the Democrats ought to have been re-elected. Median household incomes were rising handily, manufacturing back to its pre-crisis level 5 years ago.

                I think you have to allow that other stuff was the problem.
                I thoroughly agree that it wasn't merely "The Economy Stupid". But, as I'm sure I said on here many times, I was very upset at how little the Democrats trumpeted their own success. They bought into the Republican descriptions of doom and gloom. Sure, some people were left behind by the Obama economy (and these people are the subject of the last couple of pages of this thread). But the Democrats allowed the economic argument to focus on these people, rather than taking a Reaganesque "Morning In America" line. Even worse, Donald Trump is now taking credit for it, and the same Democrats who weren't impressed by the Obama economy at the time are finally acknowledging the economic successes of the previous 8 years.

                Anyway, as Ursus says, it's not monocausal.

                It's partly the economy, for the people who didn't get any gains out of the Obama economy
                It's party shit campaigning that let people think that lack of growth was widespread
                It's partly the exceptionally dogshit campaign of HRC
                It's partly just natural jadedness and cycles that mean the party in power tends to lose presidential elections after 8 years
                It's partly the lack of a message to bring out black and working class voters
                It's partly voter suppression by Republican dominated state legislatures
                It's partly that some people actually backed Donald Trump
                It may even be partly to do with Russian interference

                And that's just a start of the list.

                Comment


                  A hillbilly coalminer weighs in.

                  Comment


                    I suppose it's "overdetermined" in the Marxist sense that any one of the above factors would have won HRC the election had it gone the other way, given that Trump only one by a very narrow margin.

                    https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Overdetermination

                    Comment


                      I found myself watching Kermit hosting the Johnny Carson show, and exxon and Chevron both have lengthy ads praising their use of increasingly clean coal. with passing mentions to alternative fuels, (which seems to suggest making more stuff out of coal)


                      The Hebrew national Kosher hotdogs ad is the weirdest one though. Vincent Price is such a glorious ham. I don't know who bernadette Peters is, but Gonzo propositions her in a way that might make a senator step down, and song she sings with Robin is pure filth.
                      Last edited by The Awesome Berbaslug!!!; 29-12-2017, 00:52.

                      Comment


                        Bernadette Peters is a kind of less talented Madeleine Kahn (but with a better singing voice).

                        Clear as mud?

                        Comment


                          It's not monocausal no. I'm sure there are people who voted for Trump simply because they were Apprentice fans. There are others who are probably just attracted to orange men. Some liked the red hat.

                          But there is one cause that has probably been more instrumental then others, and that's economics.

                          I don't know why people think that there is widespread recovery in the US. When looking at wages you have to look at two things: (1) breakdown by income percentile (2) inflation corrected (real wage) statistics.



                          As for trade deals, I suppose it is easier to be for them when it's not your job that was outsourced to China.

                          Comment


                            You've forgotten a key cause, given that Clinton won more actual votes than Trump:

                            A beyond-shit, unfair voting system that, along with a similarly fetishised constitution, is bafflingly revered across the political spectrum and regarded as untouchable in too many quarters, despite having passed its sell-by date decades, if not centuries, ago.

                            Comment


                              And I'm not sure if those "wage" stats include capital gains from wealth growth, which is how the rich earn most of their money. The Fed has been printing loads of money since the crisis and most of it seems to have ended up in a stock market bubble.

                              Comment


                                China's certainly an issue because of its size and clout, but it's the NAFTA stuff I object to, and it was particularly tied in with Clinton. The great USA crumbles as a manufacturing power before the might of Mexico!

                                I've spent a fair bit of time in Texas with very Republican in-laws. I get the tour of big firms relocating there. "Where were they before, California?" I wonder. "Nah, North Carolina."

                                I heard a lot in the election about Mexico taking yer job. I didn't hear much about Texas. If you're going to zero in on NAFTA, and ignore US state aid, you almost beg a Trumpian response.

                                Comment


                                  I was also struck how Clinton had the rust belt pinned on her when an actual rust belt governor, John Kasich, was able to act like it was nothing to do with him. As indeed did actual rust belt governor, Mike Pence.

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by antoine polus View Post
                                    And I'm not sure if those "wage" stats include capital gains from wealth growth, which is how the rich earn most of their money. The Fed has been printing loads of money since the crisis and most of it seems to have ended up in a stock market bubble.
                                    They're incomes stats. So should include everything.

                                    Comment


                                      What have stats in 2007-8 got to do with the Democrats, anyway?

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by San Bernardhinault View Post
                                        I thoroughly agree that it wasn't merely "The Economy Stupid". But, as I'm sure I said on here many times, I was very upset at how little the Democrats trumpeted their own success. They bought into the Republican descriptions of doom and gloom. Sure, some people were left behind by the Obama economy (and these people are the subject of the last couple of pages of this thread). But the Democrats allowed the economic argument to focus on these people, rather than taking a Reaganesque "Morning In America" line. Even worse, Donald Trump is now taking credit for it, and the same Democrats who weren't impressed by the Obama economy at the time are finally acknowledging the economic successes of the previous 8 years.

                                        Anyway, as Ursus says, it's not monocausal.

                                        It's partly the economy, for the people who didn't get any gains out of the Obama economy
                                        It's party shit campaigning that let people think that lack of growth was widespread
                                        It's partly the exceptionally dogshit campaign of HRC
                                        It's partly just natural jadedness and cycles that mean the party in power tends to lose presidential elections after 8 years
                                        It's partly the lack of a message to bring out black and working class voters
                                        It's partly voter suppression by Republican dominated state legislatures
                                        It's partly that some people actually backed Donald Trump
                                        It may even be partly to do with Russian interference

                                        And that's just a start of the list.
                                        Yep.

                                        Comment


                                          Wages and benefits, not investment income

                                          This report was the source of the figures in that chart

                                          Comment


                                            Originally posted by Tubby Isaacs View Post
                                            What have stats in 2007-8 got to do with the Democrats, anyway?
                                            Well the ones from 2008-2014 certainly do, and would have influenced how people were thinking in 2016.

                                            I'd love to find the stats from 2008-2016.

                                            Comment


                                              Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
                                              Wages and benefits, not investment income

                                              This report was the source of the figures in that chart
                                              Do bonuses count towards wages or benefits, I wonder?

                                              Comment


                                                They should, to the extent they are paid in cash (which is usually the case)

                                                Comment


                                                  If you're going to zero in on NAFTA, and ignore US state aid, you almost beg a Trumpian response.
                                                  The most coordinated opposition to NAFTA didn't come from people in the US. One of the Nineties' most significant uprisings was nonetheless prompted by it.

                                                  Comment


                                                    Originally posted by antoine polus View Post
                                                    It's not monocausal no. I'm sure there are people who voted for Trump simply because they were Apprentice fans. There are others who are probably just attracted to orange men. Some liked the red hat.

                                                    But there is one cause that has probably been more instrumental then others, and that's economics.

                                                    I don't know why people think that there is widespread recovery in the US. When looking at wages you have to look at two things: (1) breakdown by income percentile (2) inflation corrected (real wage) statistics.



                                                    As for trade deals, I suppose it is easier to be for them when it's not your job that was outsourced to China.
                                                    That graph is meaningless. It just tells you that wages for most people fell when the property and asset bubble burst in 2008, and they hadn't' recovered fully by 2014. it doesn't tell you whether or not the economy has improved or if things have picked up for most people, simply because of the year it starts in. If you don't know how far things fell in 2007-2009, you can't tell if things have been improving for people since the fire was put out. Is there a graph covering the period between 2010 and 2016?

                                                    there's a similar issue with how people look at the Irish Economy. Everything is apparently shit and evil because wages are compared to what they were in the middle of a full blown, super-massive property boom, where a hundred thousand people were paid teacher wages to stand in a field selling people kitchen tiles. That time period covers the peaking of a massive bubble, the explosion of that bubble and the recovery from that bubble. If you keep comparing it to 2007 then of course everything is going to be shit, but that forgets that 2007 is what directly leads to 2009.
                                                    Last edited by The Awesome Berbaslug!!!; 29-12-2017, 14:08.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X