The political re-alignment of our time

[Pointedstick]

Why do you guys talk about Trump's power to launch nuclear weapons as if it's some kind of deadly danger? Do you actually believe that he might fly off the handle and nuke someone for no good reason? Really? Really?

For anyone who does, I will wager a thousand dollars here and now that if he becomes president, he won't. Virtual handshake and everything.

Anyone wanna take that bet? It should be a no-brainer if you're actually worried about it, because it's a win-win situation: If Trump nukes someone, at least you make some money, and if he doesn't, the world remains safe, which is far more valuable than a thousand bucks.

Anyone want to take that bet? Anyone? Because if not, then I'm left to feel that this fear is nothing more than a bunch of un-serious hot air.

[MediumTex]

Some of those sound like FDR policies.  Some sound like obama policies.  You left out womanizing or I would have mentioned LBJ and JFK and WJC.  I'm detecting a pattern here.  Maybe Trump will end up being a composite of the worst qualities of all those I mentioned rolled into one bad ass narciprez. 

If you are going to talk about womanizing, you've got to put FDR on that list too.

FDR actually died at his girlfriend's house! 

The media politely didn't report that tidbit at the time.

[Mountaineer]

Some of those sound like FDR policies.  Some sound like obama policies.  You left out womanizing or I would have mentioned LBJ and JFK and WJC.  I'm detecting a pattern here.  Maybe Trump will end up being a composite of the worst qualities of all those I mentioned rolled into one bad ass narciprez. 

If you are going to talk about womanizing, you've got to put FDR on that list too.

FDR actually died at his girlfriend's house! 

The media politely didn't report that tidbit at the time.

You are correct, I had forgotten about FDR (not to mention Ike but that tryst may have only been when he was stationed in England).  Maybe it would be a shorter list if we discussed non-womanizing presidents.  Or non-LBGTQRXYZ presidents. 

... M

[Pointedstick]

Hey, that bet's a little unfair.  If you lose, we'll all be vaporized and you won't have to pay out.

I realize a thousand might be a bit high, so how about $50? Don't wanna back it up with even fifty bucks?

But seriously, think of the button as a metaphor for the power of commander in chief.  And yes, that does include a button if the commander in chief gets really offended. 

Now my turn for a question: Do you feel comfortable with Trump as commander in chief?  If so, why?

Yes. Because he is a canny, calculating man who--as we see in the presidential race--uses exactly as much force as is needed to get his way, and no more, but he also knows how to fold, withdraw, and redirect while saving face. Tonight in the debate he was caught in some blatant flip-flopping and he basically turned it around and said, "Okay, so I'm a flip-flopper. I can change my mind when things change or I get new information. Can't you?"

That kind of slipperiness and skill under pressure is totally at odds with the perception some have that he's a giant bully whose omnidirectional belligerence destroys everything around him. In terms of foreign policy, "omnidirectional belligerence" is more or less what Cruz and Rubio are both explicitly advocating. It makes zero sense to fear that the most dovish of the GOP candidates is a psychopathic aggressor when his two lead rivals are actually running on the platform of being psychopathic aggressors!

[clacy]

The Republican Party is totally fracturing it appears.  I think you have 3 very distinct segments that aren't always aligned on many issues:

1. Conservatives.... These folks are largely voting for Ted Cruz.  The problem they find is that they are at best about 30-40% of the Republican base, and maybe 15-20% of the general population.  I think it would take a truly great and articulate conservative politician win a general.  Cruz has the articulate part, but for some reason he seems beyond slimy and very annoying to most.  This segment compares to the Bernie Sanders/Socialist wing, IMO.  They are the pure-ists that want it all, but don't have a very realistic chance of winning a general because they are too radical to the other side and middle of the road voters.

2. The Establishment wing (aka Corporatists).... This is the Wall Street Journal/K-Street/Wall Street crowd.  They want to outsource ANY and ALL jobs to lower wage workers from 3rd world countries.  They are quick to bomb or invade countries if their corporate sponsors want that.  These folks are far closer to Hillary Clinton than they are Ted Cruz.

3.  The newly emerging Trump-ites..... Hard to say if they can get enough crossover from blue collar Dems.  Frankly the union workers should be flocking in droves to Trump if they are concerned with their future employment prospects.

I have no idea how this will all shakeout

[rickb]

The Republican Party is totally fracturing it appears. 

The modern Republican party is an unholy alliance created by Nixon between the country club elites (the "haves") and southern segregationists (generally "have nots", who used to be solidly Democratic) disaffected by LBJ's civil rights agenda.  This alliance seems to now be breaking down.  See http://www.thenation.com/article/why-to ... -strategy/

[clacy]

The modern Republican party is an unholy alliance created by Nixon between the country club elites (the "haves") and southern segregationists (generally "have nots", who used to be solidly Democratic) disaffected by LBJ's civil rights agenda.  This alliance seems to now be breaking down.  See http://www.thenation.com/article/why-to ... -strategy/

I agree with this, but I think pretty much all political parties are unholy alliances.  I think you're starting to see the Dems fracture too, albeit not as badly as the R's.

For instance, blue collar/union Dems have to pretend to care about global warming and the LGBT community, etc, etc.

See Jim Webb for a reference.  If he was more outspoken and bombastic, he would basically be Donald Trump.

[Pointedstick]

We really should have a parliamentary system. Then there would be like 8 small parties that people could unashamedly support, but these parties would have to work together if any of them wanted to get anything done.

[clacy]

We really should have a parliamentary system. Then there would be like 8 small parties that people could unashamedly support, but these parties would have to work together if any of them wanted to get anything done.

I'm ready for that. The two party system is very disenfranchising

[Libertarian666]

We really should have a parliamentary system. Then there would be like 8 small parties that people could unashamedly support, but these parties would have to work together if any of them wanted to get anything done.

I'm good with that. It could hardly be worse than this.

[Ad Orientem]

Shades of 1912. The last time the GOP was this divided we elected the worst President in US History.

[Ad Orientem]

[moda0306]

Shades of 1912. The last time the GOP was this divided we elected the worst President in US History.

You mean the best? 

You're the monarchist here. I thought you would like Teddy. His heavy expansion of the executive branch is arguably very dangerous, but don't you think his conservationist and anti-trust moves were pretty important?  I struggle with this. I simultaneously love the guy and am disappointed in the expansion of the executive that he made commonplace.

But if any one president illustrates all the great or scary things that can result from monarchy, it's Teddy, IMO.

[Pointedstick]

More evidence of a breakup and realignment:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/05/us/po ... .html?_r=0

From Michigan to Louisiana to California on Friday, rank-and-file Republicans expressed mystification, dismissal and contempt regarding the instructions that their party’s most high-profile leaders were urgently handing down to them: Reject and defeat Donald J. Trump.
[...]
“There’s nothing short of Trump shooting my daughter in the street and my grandchildren — there is nothing and nobody that’s going to dissuade me from voting for Trump,” Ms. Butler said.
[...]
The problem, for figures like Mr. Forbes and Mr. Romney, is that Mr. Trump’s supporters seem profoundly uninterested at the moment with the image, expectations or traditions of the Republican Party, according to interviews with more than three dozen voters, elected officials and operatives. They are, in many cases, hostile to it.

“I want to see Trump go up there and do damage to the Republican Party,” said Jeff Walls, 53, of Flowood, Miss.
[...]
Kathy, from Sun City, Ariz., told Mr. Limbaugh she was “absolutely livid by the Romney speech. He’s condescending,” she said, adding that he sounded like a “Democrat the whole time.” Steve from Temecula, Calif., said he had a message for Mr. Romney: “The Republican electorate is not a bunch of completely ignorant fools.”

“We know who Donald Trump is,” he added, “and we’re going to use Donald Trump to either take over the G.O.P. or blow it up.”

[Xan]

Shades of 1912. The last time the GOP was this divided we elected the worst President in US History.

You mean the best? 

You're the monarchist here. I thought you would like Teddy. His heavy expansion of the executive branch is arguably very dangerous, but don't you think his conservationist and anti-trust moves were pretty important?  I struggle with this. I simultaneously love the guy and am disappointed in the expansion of the executive that he made commonplace.

But if any one president illustrates all the great or scary things that can result from monarchy, it's Teddy, IMO.

Moda, he's talking about the election of 1912, in which Teddy went third-party and split the Republican vote with the official nominee, Taft, thus handing the election to one Woodrow Wilson.

[moda0306]

Shades of 1912. The last time the GOP was this divided we elected the worst President in US History.

You mean the best? 

You're the monarchist here. I thought you would like Teddy. His heavy expansion of the executive branch is arguably very dangerous, but don't you think his conservationist and anti-trust moves were pretty important?  I struggle with this. I simultaneously love the guy and am disappointed in the expansion of the executive that he made commonplace.

But if any one president illustrates all the great or scary things that can result from monarchy, it's Teddy, IMO.

Moda, he's talking about the election of 1912, in which Teddy went third-party and split the Republican vote with the official nominee, Taft, thus handing the election to one Woodrow Wilson.

Dammit. Duh.

[Mountaineer]

You mean the best? 

You're the monarchist here. I thought you would like Teddy. His heavy expansion of the executive branch is arguably very dangerous, but don't you think his conservationist and anti-trust moves were pretty important?  I struggle with this. I simultaneously love the guy and am disappointed in the expansion of the executive that he made commonplace.

But if any one president illustrates all the great or scary things that can result from monarchy, it's Teddy, IMO.

Moda, he's talking about the election of 1912, in which Teddy went third-party and split the Republican vote with the official nominee, Taft, thus handing the election to one Woodrow Wilson.

Dammit. Duh.

It's OK.  Now we know you are human like the rest of us. 

... M

[moda0306]

Moda, he's talking about the election of 1912, in which Teddy went third-party and split the Republican vote with the official nominee, Taft, thus handing the election to one Woodrow Wilson.

Dammit. Duh.

It's OK.  Now we know you are human like the rest of us. 

... M

Not so fast... Between my blaze-red facial hair, my inability to comment outside the modes of "snarky" and "deductive logic," and my communistic tendencies, I think the existence of a soul in this vessel is questionable at the very least. 

[Ad Orientem]

Shades of 1912. The last time the GOP was this divided we elected the worst President in US History.

You mean the best? 

You're the monarchist here. I thought you would like Teddy. His heavy expansion of the executive branch is arguably very dangerous, but don't you think his conservationist and anti-trust moves were pretty important?  I struggle with this. I simultaneously love the guy and am disappointed in the expansion of the executive that he made commonplace.

But if any one president illustrates all the great or scary things that can result from monarchy, it's Teddy, IMO.

Moda, he's talking about the election of 1912, in which Teddy went third-party and split the Republican vote with the official nominee, Taft, thus handing the election to one Woodrow Wilson.

Thanks for your clarification. I think I was as confused by Moda's response as he was by my original comment.

[Mountaineer]

Dammit. Duh.

It's OK.  Now we know you are human like the rest of us. 

... M

Not so fast... Between my blaze-red facial hair, my inability to comment outside the modes of "snarky" and "deductive logic," and my communistic tendencies, I think the existence of a soul in this vessel is questionable at the very least.

Not to two of us, one I'm sure about - me.  The second only because He has never broken a promise.    Rock on!

... M

[Pointedstick]

Some more evidence:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... -are-they/

[img width=600]http://i.imgur.com/gRTGjL2.png[/img]

2. What really differentiates Trump’s voters from the other Republicans is the populism.

Trump voters are the only ones to score consistently high on all three populist dimensions. Cruz and Rubio’s supporters, for example, don’t express high feelings of anti-elitism. In fact, on this scale, they are strongly anti-populist, identifying with authority rather than rejecting it.

Trump supporters share anti-elitism with only one other group: Sanders’s voters.

But where Trump is a populist, we would argue that Sanders is not. Despite the fact that Sanders often gets called a populist, his voters do not conform to the populist stereotype. They generally trust experts and do not identify strongly as Americans. A better way to describe them would be cosmopolitan socialists. They see the system as corrupted by economic elites. But they don’t trust ordinary Americans and show only light attachment to Americanism as an identity.

[MediumTex]

Some more evidence:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... -are-they/

[img width=600]http://i.imgur.com/gRTGjL2.png[/img]

2. What really differentiates Trump’s voters from the other Republicans is the populism.

Trump voters are the only ones to score consistently high on all three populist dimensions. Cruz and Rubio’s supporters, for example, don’t express high feelings of anti-elitism. In fact, on this scale, they are strongly anti-populist, identifying with authority rather than rejecting it.

Trump supporters share anti-elitism with only one other group: Sanders’s voters.

But where Trump is a populist, we would argue that Sanders is not. Despite the fact that Sanders often gets called a populist, his voters do not conform to the populist stereotype. They generally trust experts and do not identify strongly as Americans. A better way to describe them would be cosmopolitan socialists. They see the system as corrupted by economic elites. But they don’t trust ordinary Americans and show only light attachment to Americanism as an identity.

Wow, that low Ted Cruz score on "Anti-Elitism" is surprising.  Cruz makes a big deal about how he's an outsider, so I guess, at best, lots of people think he's an outsider without any outrage toward the elite, even though the elite and the "insiders" are basically the same people (or their proxies).

That's surprising.  I guess people have seen through at least one of Cruz's "Mayberry Masks", which is IMHO an especially outrageous facade given that he is basically a snake.

Cruz say things like: "Well Jiminy Cricket!" when he is campaigning. 

It would be like Gollum showing up to a transgender rave in drag. 

I grok wrongness.

[MachineGhost]

Boy, you've really drunken the Kool Aid lock, stock and barrel, PS!!!

[Pointedstick]

What Kool-aid? What did I say that you disagree with?

[MachineGhost]

If only we could move to a more parliamentary style government....

No thanks.  I prefer stability instead of endless dissolvations and elections.