Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Ternaugh]

2 hours ago, Hermit said:

It's almost like self appointed titles mean little without living up to your own hype. Mmm

 

I still remember this from the 80s:

"The Moral Majority is neither."

[tkdguy]

 

[unclevlad]

2 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

 

I still remember this from the 80s:

"The Moral Majority is neither."

 

Yeah, I remember that too.  But they didn't disappear, IMO, they just pulled back until times were more favorable...and diversified into multiple 'causes.'

[Lord Liaden]

16 hours ago, wcw43921 said:

Moms For Liberty Member Arrested For Shoplifting At Target

 

7 hours ago, Hermit said:

It's almost like self appointed titles mean little without living up to your own hype. Mmm

 

Well, she did liberate a bunch of stuff from Target.

[Iuz the Evil]

We’ve got some interesting new pending legislation out here in the Golden State. Exit tax for folks who leave (with individual or combined income over $15M/$30M). Proposed new wealth tax. SB2 restrictions on concealed carry locations (including the “vampire clause” which makes it illegal to carry unless a business or private property owner explicitly posts that they welcome CCW). Repurposing about 30% of the Mental Health Services Act funding for housing in a major ballot initiative this March (7% of this funding would also go to the State for regulation of the new initiative, and prevention is removed entirely from the Act obligations). Expansion of the “gravely disabled” definitions for psychiatric holds and conservatorship to include substance abuse, which was effective January 1 but delayed by most jurisdictions until 2026.
 

It’s an interesting time. The Governor is indicating only a $38B shortfall, the legislative analyst said it’s $68B. None of the new initiatives implemented the past several years are significantly cut in the budget proposal, there are a series of payment delays to local government and some repurposing of Behavioral Health funding. I’m not sure what’s going to happen but it’ll definitely be a rough year in California. Hopefully we get good rainfall and avoid a major fire season. 
 

Edit: for clarity, the SB2 sensitive spaces clause has a stay on it pending the 9th circuit ruling.

Edited January 15 by Iuz the Evil

[unclevlad]

ABC News at halftime reporting that Trump's projected to take Iowa based on exit polls.

 

NO surprise there, of course.

 

The surprise, to a degree...they reported that exit polling *still* shows that 65% say that Biden's win wasn't legitimate.  I think hearing that is more depressing than surprising, tho.

[unclevlad]

Trump wins Iowa.  DeSantis finishes slightly ahead of Haley.  Ramaswamy suspends his campaign, getting less than 8%.

[Lord Liaden]

It's worth remembering that the caucus attendees are the most active, motivated members of their party. Their attitudes may not be reflective of the general feeling among Republicans. And Trumpists do appear to be highly motivated generally.

[Lord Liaden]

It's also worth remembering that 49% of attendees at the Iowa caucus voted for someone besides Trump. He does not have a united party behind him, and that suggests trouble in the general election. Republicans know what they get with Trump, and many of them wanted someone else. Come the general, some of those may vote for Biden instead, or just stay home.

[Old Man]

49 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

It's also worth remembering that 49% of attendees at the Iowa caucus voted for someone besides Trump.

 

50% is a landslide result for an Iowa caucus.  I can't find an example of any other non-incumbent candidate winning more than 30% there in modern history, D or R.  The only hope for Trump's competitors is that the Iowa weather kept all the sane people home.

[Lord Liaden]

I don't think in modern history we've ever had a former POTUS stand as a candidate for another presidential election after having lost his previous reelection bid. As in so many other ways, precedent doesn't really apply to Donald Trump.

[unclevlad]

5 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

It's also worth remembering that 49% of attendees at the Iowa caucus voted for someone besides Trump. He does not have a united party behind him, and that suggests trouble in the general election. Republicans know what they get with Trump, and many of them wanted someone else. Come the general, some of those may vote for Biden instead, or just stay home.

 

I don't see the implication, and by and large, I don't see large numbers of Republicans turning away from Trump.  Because, ok, Trump might not be their first choice, but they'll still vote for him.  IMO, the compelling number was what I noted earlier...65% still felt the election was stolen.  That bloc will never vote Biden.

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

Fair enough. OTOH that particular lie may be self-defeating. Because if they think the vote is rigged, they may not bother to vote at all.

[Dr. MID-Nite]

3 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Fair enough. OTOH that particular lie may be self-defeating. Because if they think the vote is rigged, they may not bother to vote at all.

 

They will...because THIS time will be different....if they vote for Trump. Sigh...I can't believe we're doing this again.

[unclevlad]

Yeah, my feeling is that in 2020, the Democrats were completely galvanized to vote.  This time...I hope they're still galvanized, because the Republicans will trumpet the "don't let it get stolen again!" line.  They'll be out in force as well.  I expect that we'll have a record turnout.

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, Dr. MID-Nite said:

 

They will...because THIS time will be different....if they vote for Trump. Sigh...I can't believe we're doing this again.

 

Their believing that doesn't make sense... but this is MAGA, so when do they ever.

 

But I'll bet the opposite way. MAGAts may be fired up, but they're a fraction of conservatives. Trump doesn't work up the majority of Republicans the way he used to. Many of those who bought the "rigged election" line when Trump was president, have no reason to believe it'll be different with Biden in the White House. And that's just Republicans. Trump can't win with just them, he needs moderates and independents, and he's done everything to alienate them. That isn't even considering the impact of his many trials.

 

I absolutely agree that Democrats can't let up. They have to get out the vote. They have to challenge Republican hypocrisy, ineffectiveness, and corruption at every turn. They have to trumpet all that the Biden administration has accomplished. But I'm betting that Trump has doomed the GOP.

 

I guess we'll see who's right. 🤞

[Ternaugh]

There's been an exodus from the GOP of moderates, so the results from Iowa don't really surprise me. 

 

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

Iowans seen voting on pieces of paper collected in ziplock bags for tallies: https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/watch/iowans-seen-voting-on-pieces-of-paper-collected-in-a-paper-bag-for-tallies/vi-AA1n2TiL?ocid=hpmsn

 

Another video shows them using a paper grocery bag, but it's part of a longer video I didn't want to paste here. But you can view it on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPSgxXLaHW8

 

I read that a popcorn tub was also used, but I haven't seen that myself.

 

At least they won't have to worry about cyber-security.

[Cygnia]

Ugh...

 

Trump Wants Revenge—And So Does His Base

Quote

Last night’s Iowa caucus results confirm that Donald Trump is almost certainly headed for the GOP presidential nomination. So much for the hopes of establishment Republicans (the handful who remain, anyway) and other conservatives that voters would refuse to join Trump’s personal crusade for vengeance against the American system of government.

Such hopes were always the thinnest of reeds: The Republican base actively embraces Trump’s grievances; it emulates his pettiness; it supports his childlike inability to accept responsibility. These voters are not sighing in resignation and voting for the lesser of two or three or four evils. They are getting what they want—because they, too, are set on revenge.

These voters are not settling a political score. Rather, they want to get even with other Americans, their own neighbors, for a simmering (and likely unexpected) humiliation that many of them seem to have felt ever since swearing loyalty to Trump.

A lot of people, especially in the media, have a hard time accepting this simple truth. Millions of Americans, stung by the electoral rebukes of their fellow citizens, have become so resentful and detached from reality that they have plunged into a moral void, a vortex that disintegrates questions of politics or policies and replaces them with heroic fantasies of redeeming a supposedly fallen nation.

Poll numbers on this issue are dispiriting. A third of Republicans—and four in 10 voters who have a favorable view of Trump—agree with the statement that “true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.” But violence against whom? We are not under foreign occupation. When people talk about “resorting to violence” they are, by default, talking about violence against their fellow citizens, some of whom have already been threatened merely for working in their communities as election volunteers.

But perhaps such views are merely overheated samplings from super-red MAGA pockets, and the heartland voters are more sensible. No such luck. In Iowa, 19 percent of 502 likely GOP caucus attendees said Trump’s statement that he might have “no choice” but to lock up his political opponents made them more inclined to vote for him. One out of five might not seem like a lot, but another 43 percent said they didn’t care one way or another. Trump’s ranting about “terminating” parts of the Constitution made only 14 percent more likely to vote for him, but again, 36 percent didn’t care. What a triumph: Only one in eight Iowa GOP caucus voters supports trashing the Constitution.

The words of actual Trump supporters are even more unnerving than looking at raw poll numbers. My friend, the writer David French, lives deep in MAGA country. “You can go to social gatherings here in the South,” he wrote last week, and hear people whisper to friends, “Don’t talk about politics in front of Dad. He’s out of control.” David is also a lawyer, and he notes:
 

I know that rage and conspiracies aren’t unique to the right. During my litigation career, I frequently faced off against the worst excesses of the radical left. But never before have I seen extremism penetrate a vast American community so deeply, so completely and so comprehensively.

 

[Pattern Ghost]

39 minutes ago, Cygnia said:

I know that rage and conspiracies aren’t unique to the right. During my litigation career, I frequently faced off against the worst excesses of the radical left. But never before have I seen extremism penetrate a vast American community so deeply, so completely and so comprehensively.

 

This is the scary part. Even if we get rid of Trump, he loses the election, gets tossed in jail . . . this is his legacy.

[Lord Liaden]

As I've said before, there's been significant rot at the core of American society and politics for a long time, but for the most part it was far enough under the surface that most people could ignore it. Trump has brought it up to where it can't be ignored any longer, which is an essential first step to purging it.

 

Think of Trump as being like that stuff you drink to clear out your bowels before a colonoscopy. It tastes foul, and it makes a big mess, but you're clean enough afterward for examination.

[Starlord]

The Colonoscopy Discussion Thread is over there.

[unclevlad]

Interesting point from NYT email I just got.  The headline is, do political ads still matter?
 

The gist:
 

Quote

Nikki Haley and her allied super PAC spent roughly $28 million on broadcast ads in Iowa, according to AdImpact, an ad-tracking firm. Gov. Ron DeSantis and his allies spent $25 million. Trump and his super PAC spent only $15 million — and won by more than 30 points.

 

As my colleagues Michael Bender and Katie Glueck reported, that result showed a new depth to the Republican Party’s devotion to Trump. But it also suggests that a smaller universe of persuadable voters and a wholesale shift in viewing habits may have significantly undercut the impact of political advertising.

 

According to Cross Screen Media, an ad analytics firm, only 63 percent of Iowa Republicans are reachable with traditional or “linear” TV ads, as viewers switch to streaming and social media. In 2016, that percentage was still in the 90s. At most, Republican campaigns this year reached 42 percent of likely caucus voters.

 

I definitely feel the "smaller universe" is a big point, particularly WRT Trump vs. not-Trump, because the points have dominated the news cycle...Jan. 6th, for several years, and the legal issues and trials, what, a year or so.  OK, so perhaps Haley was only about taking 2nd away from DeSantis, but still, that's a lotta work and money for a couple delegates.

 

And cord cutting is definitely A Thing.  I'd also be curious to get a detailed examination on where the campaigns are buying those ads...because it's possible, the effective reach stats may well be *lower*.  My thought...couple weeks ago, I commented about Haley and DeSantis ads.  Very likely during some football game.  I know I saw multiple Haley ads at that time...but is there additional impact, is there notably improved coverage, in buying multiple slots?  I believe the first 2 Haley ads showed within...half an hour of each other?  Feels like a LOT of overlap that won't do any good.

 

From a media perspective, tho, Trump has the overwhelming advantage in not needing to spend money.  I don't believe in "there's no such thing as bad publicity"...but all downsides WRT the Trump trials have already been turned into road pizza.  So he continues to be able to portray himself as the martyr, the fighter, and paint his enemies with green vitriol.  As such, this is a bizarre Republican primary season.    

[Cygnia]

A Republican In This State Wants Animal Services To Remove Furries From Schools

Quote

A Republican legislator in Oklahoma who once said that transgender people have “a mental illness” introduced a bill this week that would allow animal services to remove students who identify as furries from school.
The bill, which was pre-filed ahead of Oklahoma’s legislative session, would bar students who “purport to be an imaginary animal or animal species, or who engage in anthropomorphic behavior commonly referred to as furries,” from school activities.
The legislation, sponsored by Republican state Rep. Justin Humphrey, may seem farcical. But the idea that schools accommodate students who identify as animals has its roots in a long-standing — and repeatedly debunked — conservative myth.
Republican legislators and candidates have for years claimed that schools are putting litter boxes in classrooms for students who identify as cats or furries. At least 20 GOP politicians peddled these claims in 2022, and used them as a way to sound the alarm over protections and accommodations for LGBTQ+ students, NBC News reported.

“What’s most provocative about this hoax is how it turns to two key wedge issues for conservatives: educational accommodations and gender nonconformity,” Joan Donovan, a researcher on media and politics at Harvard University, told the outlet at the time.
In reality, there is no evidence of schools making litter boxes available for students who identify as animals. NBC News found one school, in the same Colorado district as Columbine High School, that has kept cat litter on campus for emergency use in the event of a shooting lockdown.

 

[Lord Liaden]

This is now a well-established Republican tactic: Invent a problem/concern that doesn't exist for people to get outraged over, then invent an unnecessary solution to said problem so they can appear to be doing something without actually having to do anything.

Edited January 18 by Lord Liaden