I have another thread for the programming convo.


j/k ;-)

Wookie06, do you ever worry that Trump is going to be the next Reagan?

By which I mean, an incompetent, profligate spender who expands the US government to new historic heights but is somehow celebrated as a conservative icon for the rest of your life?

@daveweigel: When focus group began, only 10 people said they were 90% or 100% set on backing [Trump]. After an hour of discussing his gaffes, it's 16.

@daveweigel: Two voters who came into the focus group having cooled on Trump now say they're more supportive, after 2.5 hours of negative arguments


LOL

I don't know what is going on. My mom now supports Trump. I'm so confused.

Do you want me to explain it to you? It's a pretty long story. Technically it starts in 1672, but I can skip ahead a little.

Back in the 1940s and 1950s there was this group of academics in Chicago, who wrote about really unpopular economic theories. See, at the time, most scientists thought the question of macroeconomics had already been solved, by a guy named Keynes - he had answered a lot of difficult questions about the Great Depression, and his policy recommendations were extremely effective during America's recovery. Those Chicago economists didn't like Keynes much, though. They believed that instead of spending money to buy real things, governments could stimulate the economy the same way by buying and selling bonds. That way, private businesses are free to decide how economic stimulus should be spent, and the government can more easily claw it back after a recovery.

Many of these economists helped FDR administrate the New Deal, and in doing so, made friends in the right places. They found a sympathetic ear in the Republicans of the day, and eventually rose to become the economic thought leaders of the party. Those Chicago economists were eager to learn if their frequently-disputed beliefs were correct, and used their political sway to attempt economic engineering under Nixon. This first attempt included, among other things, the repeal of the gold standard. These policies were deeply unpopular and ineffective, and Nixon quickly retreated back to the safety of mainstream economics, but not before inflicting an economic wound that researchers today blame for stagflation nearly a decade later.

The Chicago economists reasoned that their experiment didn't fail because their ideas were bad, but rather that mainstream economic ideas were simply too good for the average American. Keynes's ideas caused immediate gains that benefited the poorest people the most, through infrastructure spending and government job creation. There was wailing and hand-wringing; the Chicago economists feared that the mainstream economists advising the Democratic party were trying to silence their dissent with thinly-veiled vote buying. The new Republican ideas were centered upon stimulating the biggest private sector firms, an agenda that simply wasn't attractive to most voters.

The Republicans found their spoonful of sugar in the Dixiecrat/demographic shift. The shift brought principally racist and/or anti-federalist voters over to the Republican party. This wasn't out of support for Chicago economic stewardship, but simply because the Republicans were opposite the Democrats. This complete evacuation of common sense hit a fever pitch in 1979, when Jerry Falwell, incensed about who-gives-a-****, founded a Christian voting bloc in direct personal opposition to Jimmy Carter. It all happened for the stupidest possible reasons, but the Chicago economists had finally found the subjects for their grand experiment. It began promptly upon the election of Ronald Reagan, and continued unabated until about a couple of months ago when the Federal Reserve conclusively demonstrated that none of their ideas work.

In the meantime, though, the Faustian bargain - the union between heterodox economics and the justly marginalized - ate the Republican party alive. These disparate blocs were never married to the core conservative ideals of the Republican intelligentsia: one mistake, and they would punish the Republican party just as they did the Democrats. The Republicans were forced to adopt increasingly erratic social policies in order to appease those blocs, and they had to couch their economic engineering in acceptable and understandable language. The quiet dignity of Eisenhower was no longer permitted; Republicans needed to be white, Christian businessmen, with the stage presence of an evangelical minister. The last plausible Republican presidential candidate was stuck so deep in this mess that he affected a bumpkin accent for 8 straight years.

Oof. Still with me? Great.

So, about Trump. You see, Trump isn't just running as a Republican, he is running as The Republican. Trump is playing the character for whom the base has been trained to vote. He is the perfect candidate: rich; white; extensive business experience; angry; racist; unapologetic; larger-than-life. Is he actually a Republican? Does he believe in desegregation, or monetarism, or supply-side stimulus? Absolutely not. But none of that matters. The racists, the anti-federalists, and the Christians were never voting for Chicago economists. They were voting for the anger, racism, fear, and pontification, and that's exactly what Trump is offering them. So the Republican party is now in full meltdown mode, and every politically conscious Republican is tearing their hair out, because up until now none of them realized that their entire movement permanently died decades ago.

This is the most accurate summation of the scenario I have read.

This thread does not deliver.

Get it now? It's your mom's anger, racism, fear, and pontification.

Generally, I think it's much simpler than all of that. Sure, Trump does attract racist and ignorant people but so does Obama so that's hardly something Trump or Republicans have a monopoly on. I think people, to include damaged politicians, want to be associated with a "winner". Trump is a winner in the view of his supporters and there doesn't seem to be anything that can persuade those people otherwise. I've held that Trump is unelectable in the general but if this phenomenon expands I could be very wrong. Growing up in the 70s and 80s I remember that Donald Trump was self-caricatured as the elite, rich snob. He was always a tabloid joke and still is in my mind. Furthermore, I can't take him serious especially because there's no indication that he has a single value formed by anything other than a desire for fame, power, and money.

I didn't say they were angry, racist, fearful, or pontificate. I said they're trained to vote for those things.

Thanks for agreeing with me, I guess?

As usual many of your assertions are arguable and since I lack the interest to research the merits of you arguments and those of competing arguments I simply offer a simpler idea that's come to me as this is all unfolding before our eyes. I really am interested in your thoughts, though. Please don't take my comment to mean that I dismiss your posts entirely. It does seem, though, at this point in our time here at Massassi getting involved in contentious political arguments would make about as much sense as a two time failed Republican presidential candidate getting involved in the current race.

Okay, that final line was outstanding, wookie. I'll give you props for that. That joke delivers.

I don't care what anyone says. You ALL know my threads deliver. They're tremendous, with uge replies, and just very bigly liked.

Needs more sentence fragments and fraud lawsuits.

You know, this bit is surely true in that there must be such people in voters of both, but I'm sure you see that someone like Trump would attract a far more substantial amount of racist voters than someone like Obama. The latter never ran on building a wall against the Mexican border and barring Muslims from entering the country. And while those things don't even have to be racist (theoretically you could propose those things strictly out of a conviction to fighting illegal immigration and terrorism), they will appeal to racists far better than any of Obama's campaign promises. I think most Trump supporters are probably no more racist than others, but I don't see why he wouldn't draw a lot more of his votes from racists than Obama did.

I think it's practically impossible to put numbers to it. Clearly I think low-brow white racists would be more likely to support Trump. I think high-brow white racists would be more likely to support Obama. Obviously black racists supported Obama but the entire black vote was, what, 96% for him so whatever. Who would racist hispanics support in the current race? Racism is just as diverse a topic as politics.

Apparently Trump has softened his views and won't be deporting Jon`C so I still can't support him.

I'm calling it now. Deez Nuts will make a comeback campaign.