Trump's ability to get away with shooting somebody in the middle of 5th Ave is likely waning

So Canada, you mean?

Pretty much the whole country is a patchwork right now… there isn’t really any state that’s really solid red or blue. I live in Suburban ATL in GA, and it’s very different from the more rural parts of the state (the whiter, more conservative parts). It can be hard to believe it’s the same state.


It’s not a sea of red in Michigan, that was an illusion created by Republican Gerrymandering, the results of our most recent election with a neutralized map shows it.


The budget Trump that is Boris Johnson was elected to Prime Minister because you’re right - some people see politics as an extension of show business - they want loud characters that promise to shake up the establishment - and they don’t really think through the consequences.

It probably all goes back to Italy’s flirtation with Silvio Berlusconi a couple of decades ago. A corrupt entertainer with enough greasy charm to get the premiership and use it as a front for more ruthless right wing politicians to run riot.


mood GIF

And in almost every other state, too.

They also want right wing policies that put “those people” in their place, though. Same with Berlusconi… these people know what they’re voting for and what they’re doing when they vote for openly fascist figures. Let’s not let them off the hook by assuming they’re just looking to be entertained. What “entertains” them is the suffering of people who they don’t like. That’s just fascism, because fascism is just being a bully at a large scale.


I feel like this gets lost in the shuffle. There is a core who love Trump and MTG and the rest of the far-right. And these aren’t people who want strong unions and a higher minimum wage, universal healthcare and better social services. They love him because he represents them. That he does so with all the bombast is just lagniappe. They believe in what he delivers. And he delivers what they believe in.


About time.


This is why I agreed with your comment. Despite people expressing a lot of concern that this doesn’t work, it already has:

I also keep in mind that a lot of GOP supporters who helped 45 before are no longer with us. In a race for the presidency, they have to try to rig the outcome in different ways that what’s worked for the GOP in statewide elections. He’s also generated more bad feeling among his own followers who were thrown under the bus repeatedly after donating money, attending his events, and responding to his call to action on Jan. 6. As is his MO, he didn’t deliver on what he promised them - even when he was able to do so. Some of his fans aren’t likely to believe in him a second time for just that reason. We don’t need them to switch sides, it’s enough if they decide not to vote.


I mean, that’s what we were saying in 2016…


The problem with the the “boost far-right opposition candidates to make centrist Democrats more likely to win in a general election” strategy isn’t that it never works… if your sole objective is to get more Democrats in office in the short term then it may well seem like a reasonable strategy. The problem is that it always comes with a risk of backfiring in a catastrophic way because when the Democrats don’t win for whatever reason you’ve got an extremist in office.

Even when the extremists lose, just putting them on a debate podium grants their views legitimacy in the eyes of the public and pushes the Overton window farther and farther to the right. Instead of having a debate between two people who have differing views on how to best manage healthcare or how to prevent the worst effects of climate change or whatever you end up with a debate where one side is saying “let’s do some genocide” and the other is saying “no please let’s not.”


Can we all agree that the world has changed significantly since 2016 - and not in a good way? I know that folks like to say people have short memories, but that election, the pandemic and all the awfulness that followed shouldn’t require an excessive amount of reminders. The usual cycle of campaign ads tend to put past performance front and center when a previous office holder runs again. The best argument against 2016 was 45’s loss in 2020.

In a world where the press and social media continually gives those views legitimacy, I’m not overly concerned about it winding up on the debate stage. Debates are one-off events that occur a few times during an election cycle. The media has been at this 24/7/365 for years now. That’s a separate problem from how to respond or counter arguments when a right-wing candidate runs. We’re not going to stop them from running. We can focus on improving our response, and there were plenty of examples of speeches, press conferences, and interviews that show what works against their rhetoric.

If the GOP was so confident about their chances of a legitimate victory, I doubt they’d be putting so much effort into winning by any means - including all the illegal and unethical methods they attempt and/or discuss every time they lose. We have to be prepared to counter their tactics and defeat whatever candidates they support, even if that’s 45. He’s provided more than enough material to be used against him. Rather than wasting effort on trying to keep him off the stage, we need to focus on supporting the candidate to beat him.

I’m not trying to be defeatist here. However, if he runs again and wins despite our best efforts, then that’s an indication of what the majority of the people in this country want - or election fraud on a massive scale. The GOP is not being subtle here, and this is a choice between being governed or ruled. I hope that the voters choose wisely, and will do my best to make sure conservatives get the message we’re not going down without a fight (also that they won’t be immune from the consequences if they choose poorly).


It’s not just a one-off event. The language used and ideas expressed by the people running for the highest offices in our country have a tremendous impact on the national dialogue, especially when the 24/7 news media is reporting every inflammatory statement for months or years at a stretch during an extended national campaign.

It’s toxic, it’s destructive, and it’s a self-accelerating feedback loop.

When the worst people in the world are presented as viable candidates for the highest positions in government we ALL lose.


I know @Mindysan33 is an historian and knows this part:

There are also a lot who aren’t hardcore believers but are willing to tolerate the awful goals as “side effects” of a world that’s better for them personally. Given a ballot-box choice of “Death camps, maybe” vs “possible slightly higher marginal tax rate”, they’ll vote for death camps, as long as it won’t affect anyone they know. It’s not their first choice, but they tell themselves it’s better for the economy overall, or they’re protecting their own children, or some other shiny lie. Fascism often needs “It’s a shame, but…” to get off the ground. Which is why history judges them harshly.

ETA: Found it.

“Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.
That word is “Nazi.” Nobody cares about their motives anymore.”
― A.R. Moxon

There were enough enablers that historians have commented on them, at length. I don’t know the numbers, but I believe these enablers outnumbered the outspoken true believers by a significant multiplier.


See Jon Ossoff GIF by Election 2020


I don’t believe that candidates are driving the national dialogue based on ten topics that might be covered in a debate and forgotten a few months later. The media is driving it. What they decide to cover and report tends to reflect corporate interests and whatever will bring in the most ad revenue. We get as much right-wing content from office holders as we might from candidates, but the focus on bi-annual elections is a good example of how little attention is paid to most candidates in general. We still struggle to get the press to pay attention to what they call “off-year” elections. Could most people even name the top 5 topics from the last debate? I doubt it. That’s why I referred to them as I did.

I don’t want to get off topic in pointing out what has staying power in terms of toxicity in press coverage, because there are too many subjects to list. However, it’s important to focus on the parts of the process within our control. Sadly, that’s not one of them.

I don’t agree that this makes us all lose. Again, who wins is more important to me, because it’s a reflection of the will of the people (or should be). Bad people are always able to try and run. Not all of them make it through the process to even make it onto the ballot. The point is to make sure they have better opponents and do all we can to defeat those “worst people in the world.” Personally, I have no say in who the GOP nominates. That’s on them. I do have some say in who wins, through campaign support and my vote.


Pretty sure a year from now, we will, once again, be living in Interesting Times.

Not sure about that… remember 2016, etc.
Additionally, the Census took place in 2020, so redistricting is in play, along with more ratfuckery from The Usual Suspects. And they have had plenty of time in the interim to make plans…
As they say, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it sometimes rhymes”.

Anyone else remember the election of 2000 and the Court-Appointed POTUS?
I damn sure haven’t, & I don’t put anything past these fuckers.

1 Like

Obviously it matters who wins, but the discourse matters too. Consider that this is how two conservative Republicans debated immigration back in 1980:

TL;DR: George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan were trying to out-compassion each other, arguing that the children of illegal immigrants should have full access to schools and social services and that we needed to find more paths to citizenship to for migrant workers. Nobody was calling Mexicans “rapists,” no one was promoting the idea of building a wall. And when Reagan became President he actually acted on it, granting amnesty to something like 100,000 immigrant families.

That’s what the right-wing conservative position was like. Imagine how much more room there would be to debate truly progressive policy proposals if the opposition’s position is “let’s find a way to give them jobs and benefits” instead of “let’s kidnap their children and put them all in concentration camps.”

We also can’t keep assuming that our side is going to win by being the only reasonable alternative to a so-called “unelectable” Republican. Trump proved that theory as wrong as could be. If the next election comes down to Trump and Biden we have to be prepared for the possibility that yes, Trump could win. There could be a real Biden scandal or a disaster of some kind that tanks his support. Biden could have a stroke. Hell, Biden could fucking DIE (either via assassination or natural causes).

“We should encourage the opposition to run monstrous candidates because that helps us win” is a dangerous, dangerous strategy.


The drop was pretty recent, within the last week, so at least with that particular graphic (which has averages and priors built into the prediction model), we’re going to have to wait a few weeks before we see the model adjust

I see it as more saying the right things to get elected, except the former actor was better at delivering his lines. Reagan caused some serious problems in my community, and the only relative of mine who voted for him gets roasted about that shit to this day, even though we finally convinced her not to vote for him twice.

I’m not making that assumption, but I understand why the Democratic party leadership prefers that contest to one between a so-called “reasonable” Republican vs. their candidate. In a primary race, the extreme, polarizing sound bites might seem attractive, but they don’t always win against the candidate from the other party. When those two candidates seem very similar, some voters just follow party lines or don’t vote at all because they see no difference in voting either way. Candidates with more extreme views have changed that perception. The more they say the quiet part out loud, the better.

Please refresh my memory. Which far-right Republican on this list from 2016 was supported by the Democratic Party? Trump proved that theory right in 2020, when he was the unelectable Republican vs. the reasonable Democrat who is POTUS right now. If you are referring to 2016, when he ran against Hillary Clinton, there’s a completely different environment and set of reasons why he won the election but lost the popular vote.

Not sure why there’s any assumption that people aren’t prepared for that possibility. We’ve already been through it once before. Glad to see more folks are paying attention now - unlike last time, when many folks claimed they couldn’t see it coming and those of us from marginalized groups collectively said, “Really?” The Democratic Party came late to the realization that these extremists are not playing by the usual rules. Their use of tactics in the midterms gave me hope that they are changing, too, and being proactive instead of reactive.

Again, we are dealing with two monsters. Neither was of our choosing, they choose who runs. We don’t want either one to win because both are dangerous to us. However, if having the GOP choose the worse one for the ballot improves our chances of keeping both out of power, I understand why that becomes the Democratic Party’s preferred choice. For example, 45 vs. Youngkin. Youngkin seems reasonable and electable. IMO, he’s just as evil, but he puts a pleasant face on it and is more effective at getting evil enacted into law. Do I want to see that name on a ballot? No, I do not.

Members of his party who have turned against 45 would have no trouble funding and electing Youngkin as an alternative who looks like a return to the good old days when the GOP was just described as conservative. 45 is polarizing, even within his own party. That affects turnout. As I keep repeating, most of us in opposition don’t even have a say in who the GOP nominates. If 45 is still so great at fundraising, maybe we can stand back and watch those candidates fight each other without any intervention necessary. We’re living in dangerous times, and we’ve already been burned badly by trying to proceed with politics as usual while fighting an unequal match against forces of wealth, power, privilege, and influence. I’d rather see our side bringing some strategy, guile, and guts to the fight rather than being defeated because of a refusal to take any risks.


As long as they choose the monsters who run then yes, that’s all on them and all our efforts should go into defeating them.

All I’m saying is ever-more-monstrous candidates running for office on major party tickets is a bad thing, and people of conscience should never encourage or celebrate such candidates winning party nominations even if that theoretically makes it more likely that Dems will win in the general election. So when I see an analysis titled “The Democrats’ strategy of boosting far-right candidates seems to have worked” I think “this is a bad idea and Democrats should stop giving their support to those people.”


I feel like you could say the same of the world since 2020 as well… the right-wing media and Republicans in general have been working overtime to normalize Trump and the crimes he committed, even the ones that so horrified them in 2021. It’s not as if Trump lost 2020 because his popularity had waned, but because everyone else was galvanized enough to come out to vote. But Biden’s support has waned for various reasons, and the Republicans have worked hard - and apparently quite effectively - to engage in voter suppression in preparation. 2024 is going to be a hard slog.