Just look what happened to Hilary Clinton. She was ahead in the polls and even found innocent, but the uncertainty lost her the election.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Serious The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Oglemi
- Start date
- Status
Just look what happened to Hilary Clinton. She was ahead in the polls and even found innocent, but the uncertainty lost her the election.
It definitely isn't a boom, nobody argued that.
Here's the thing though.
Politicians are either slimy dirtbags, or irrelevant.
Expecting anyone that gets anywhere close of the top ranks of politics to be paragons of morality is naive. Plain and simple. Politics is a dirty game, if you're not dirty enough, you lose.
The job description includes dealing and negotiating with known scumbags and lobbyists on a daily basis, each with their own self-interests and ambitions.
Be honest, were you surprised by Trump getting convicted? Was anyone that isn't a rabid Trump fan shocked that he is in fact a dirtbag? This has been a talking point since 2016.
No swing voter was going to vote for Trump on the basis that he's an honest candidate and Biden isn't.
So yeah, this isn't the slam dunk some people think it is.
Okay so opinions are meaningless. Let's look at polls.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/
Polls from the past 4 days all put Biden ahead. Everything before that has Trump in the lead. While polls are far from a guaranteed predictor and opinions do shift, it's objectively true that Trump being a literal felon is going to convince at least some people not to vote for him, end of story. Will it shift the election? Or will it not matter? Hard to say, but it absolutely will hurt Trump.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/
Polls from the past 4 days all put Biden ahead. Everything before that has Trump in the lead. While polls are far from a guaranteed predictor and opinions do shift, it's objectively true that Trump being a literal felon is going to convince at least some people not to vote for him, end of story. Will it shift the election? Or will it not matter? Hard to say, but it absolutely will hurt Trump.
i mostly agree with your post but, at least with a broad enough definition of honesty, this oversimplifies it, as some people see trump as more honest because they see him as more authentic. there was a recent article in nature to this effect (link), and i think these passages are especially relevant:
This discrepancy between factual accuracy and perceived honesty is, however, understandable if ‘speaking one’s mind’ on behalf of a constituency is considered a better marker of honesty than veracity. The idea that untrue statements can be honest, provided they arise from authentic belief speaking, points to a distinct ontology of honesty that does not rely on the notion of evidence but on a radically constructivist appeal to an intuitive shared experience as ‘truth’. There have been several attempts to characterize this ontology of truth and honesty and the stream of misinformation to which it gives rise. A recent analysis of ontologies of political truth proposed two distinct conceptions of truth: ‘belief speaking’ and ‘fact speaking’. Belief speaking relates only to the speaker’s beliefs, thoughts and feelings, without regard to factual accuracy. Fact speaking, in contrast, relates to the search for accurate information and an updating of one’s beliefs based on that information.
The first of these two ontologies echoes the radical constructivist truth, based on intuition and feelings, that also characterized 1930s fascism. This conception of truth sometimes rejects the role of evidence outright. For example, Nazi ideology postulated the existence of an ‘organic truth’ based on personal experience and intuition that can only be revealed through inner reflection but not external evidence. Contemporary variants of this conception of truth can be found in critical postmodern theory and both right-wing and left-wing populism.* The second ontology, based on fact speaking, aims to establish a shared evidence-based reality that is essential for the well-being of democracy. This conception of truth aims to be dispassionate and does not admit appeals to emotion as a valid tool to adjudicate evidence, although it also does not preclude truth-finding from being highly contested and messy.**
* (note from me, adeleine; see also some religious doctrines)
** (note from me adeleine: i think the last two sentences go too far, that appeals to emotion are an important part of politics and democracy too, because facts alone do not ideology make, but i thought it was worth including as a notable point of view regardless)
no, she won the popular vote. her neglect of critical rust belt swing states in favor of shoring up support of the suburban south is what lost her the electoral college
there's a "quiet biden" voter, the kind of apolitical guy out in the suburbs that hates trump/MAGA as a cultural-class thing. probably repulsed by abortion and trump's relentless scandals and jan 6 and whatnot, they're the guys that made 2022 not the red wave that everyone was fearing. the mythical suburban moderate chuck schumer infamously talked about focusing in favor of in abandon of blue collar voters in old dem stronghold states. they're still out there, ergo, i think biden wins. he has bad vibes but trump has worse vibes for a lot of people
That is not true. Being an asshole dirtbag of a politician does in fact hurt politically. It is bad politics. Yes, this phenomenon is asymmetrical. You don’t get extra credit for being a “good person” in politics. However, you will certainly lose elections for being a piece of shit. Whack jobs, crooks, pedofiles, and neo-Nazis all lose elections. Naive is thinking Trump getting convicted with 34 felonies (and possibly sentenced to prison) has no negative effect on his electability.
Being an asshole dirtbag is in fact very good politics, the problem is Trump is way too loud and not savvy whatsoever plus he alienates anyone actually competent around him
If it makes you feel any less nervous, Trump's age and general health may prevent him from doing this. If he fails to win this year, I have my doubts that he'll be alive or in good enough health to try again in 2028.
knowing my luck he'll have had 3 heart attacks and still be running
Not gonna lie, pretending that if Trump falls ill or dies then all our problems are solved is naive and harmful in the long run. Trump exists as the cult of personality he represents for a reason. People support him, even despite all the fucked up shit he's said and done, for a reason. Trump is popular and won a fucking election for a reason. Those reasons will not die or go away if Trump does, and while other conservative figures might not have the same charisma as Trump, they will eventually find a new catalyst likely just as bad if not worse than Trump. Cutting down the weeds doesn't matter if you don't also pull out the roots.
Trump won for the same reason he just got convicted of 34 felonies. Let’s not mystify his popularity. Trump is a terrible politician. He has never gotten more than 47% of the vote. Since stealing the 2016 election, he’s cost the Republicans in every major election and has all but destroyed the party apparatus.
While we expect Trump’s base to deify him, it is interesting how much political respect he gets from non-supporters despite the record not being in his favor. Remember, this is the first incumbent President to lose an election since Carter (GHW Bush was a Reagan 3rd term) and one of only 3 to lose in the last 100 years. Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden are all living US Presidents that won elections with >50% of the vote. Those are his peers. How can we consider Trump to be popular?
Last edited:
fuck the states, we're going to talk about Canada and what's happening up here as a cautionary tale for Americans going into 2024.
In progressive, moderate, friendly Canada, we are currently staring down an absolute majority for the Conservatives under its most far-right leader to date. The parallels to Trump in manner are rather alarming, even if the lives of both him and Pierre Poilievre are wildly different. They're both authoritarian figures who never really worked a day in their lives with massive stealth propaganda campaigns dedicated to convincing the lowest common denominator that they're just like them. They're both wildly unstatesman-like to the point of contempt for their country's political culture. They're backed by uber-wealthy racists, with Blake Masters' college roommate winning a sinecure Commons seat thanks to support from Peter Thiel. Just like his failed casino owner counterpart in the States, Poilievre has also announced his willingness to very selectively ignore basic constitutional rights upon his choosing, and has made a central platform piece his willingness to go after LGBTQ2S representation in schools and education. Perhaps most dangerously, there is also an unwillingness to denounce violent neo-Nazism until it becomes too politically inconvenient to not do so. We saw this with Charlottesville, and now we're seeing it with groups like this (in this case after the leader made "jokes" about raping Poilievre's wife).
But one thing stands out the most to me: they are both politicians that are soliciting and tacitly supporting the efforts of foreign states to intervene in domestic politics on their behalf. In the American case, it was Russia (with assists from Turkey, KSA, Israel). In Canada, it's India.
Yes, India. I'm not joking. Literally one of the most blatantly corrupt and incompetent states is currently intervening in our politics with astonishing results. I don't just mean as in being successful in infiltrating riding associations and tipping nomination races, but in outright getting the party's senior figures to refuse to condemn the country's leadership. Last year, the Indian government was accused of assassinating a Sikh activist in Canada -a Canadian citizen- for his part in organising a peaceful transnational movement dedicated to establishing a homeland for Sikhs in India. Recruiting figures associated with organised crime, the Indian government actually launched a campaign to murder several activists in the US and Canada. Understandably, the United States and Canadian governments have called out the crime and condemned its perpetrators.
Except Pierre Poilievre, who has seemingly refused to acknowledge the Indian government's role in the assassination, and now his campaign chair Arpan Khanna is being investigated by the Mounties for allegedly taking help from the Indian government to take his seat in the House of Commons. All of this is an extraordinary about-face from the Tories' position on Chinese interference, which baselessly portrayed the Liberal Party as being beholden to Chinese interests. It is gradually becoming more clear that this was projection on their part.
In progressive, moderate, friendly Canada, we are currently staring down an absolute majority for the Conservatives under its most far-right leader to date. The parallels to Trump in manner are rather alarming, even if the lives of both him and Pierre Poilievre are wildly different. They're both authoritarian figures who never really worked a day in their lives with massive stealth propaganda campaigns dedicated to convincing the lowest common denominator that they're just like them. They're both wildly unstatesman-like to the point of contempt for their country's political culture. They're backed by uber-wealthy racists, with Blake Masters' college roommate winning a sinecure Commons seat thanks to support from Peter Thiel. Just like his failed casino owner counterpart in the States, Poilievre has also announced his willingness to very selectively ignore basic constitutional rights upon his choosing, and has made a central platform piece his willingness to go after LGBTQ2S representation in schools and education. Perhaps most dangerously, there is also an unwillingness to denounce violent neo-Nazism until it becomes too politically inconvenient to not do so. We saw this with Charlottesville, and now we're seeing it with groups like this (in this case after the leader made "jokes" about raping Poilievre's wife).
But one thing stands out the most to me: they are both politicians that are soliciting and tacitly supporting the efforts of foreign states to intervene in domestic politics on their behalf. In the American case, it was Russia (with assists from Turkey, KSA, Israel). In Canada, it's India.
Yes, India. I'm not joking. Literally one of the most blatantly corrupt and incompetent states is currently intervening in our politics with astonishing results. I don't just mean as in being successful in infiltrating riding associations and tipping nomination races, but in outright getting the party's senior figures to refuse to condemn the country's leadership. Last year, the Indian government was accused of assassinating a Sikh activist in Canada -a Canadian citizen- for his part in organising a peaceful transnational movement dedicated to establishing a homeland for Sikhs in India. Recruiting figures associated with organised crime, the Indian government actually launched a campaign to murder several activists in the US and Canada. Understandably, the United States and Canadian governments have called out the crime and condemned its perpetrators.
Except Pierre Poilievre, who has seemingly refused to acknowledge the Indian government's role in the assassination, and now his campaign chair Arpan Khanna is being investigated by the Mounties for allegedly taking help from the Indian government to take his seat in the House of Commons. All of this is an extraordinary about-face from the Tories' position on Chinese interference, which baselessly portrayed the Liberal Party as being beholden to Chinese interests. It is gradually becoming more clear that this was projection on their part.
Last edited:
I most certainly did not say anything to the contrary. The Republicans will continue being ghoulish after Trump bites it, as is their nature, though I do expect that Trump's death will slow their death spiral into fascism. Note that I said slow, not stop.
Demand Arnold Viersen be given his hairline back
And that's not really going to change.
I'm not saying that there won't be an impact, but a lot of Biden voters are claiming that this is a major win that can turn the tides of the election and frankly, I'm not buying it.
This is a minor win that will hurt Trump, but it's unlikely to sway the election on its own.
Trump's campaign isn't centered around his virtues. Its core is to make Biden look like a weak, inefficient president, and generate all the apathy he can.
If anything, Biden can't get comfortable over this. He has to show that he's been doing a good job, and really drive away any suspicion that he is a weak candidate. He's the incumbent.
If Trump was the current president and got convicted of 34 felonies, that would be devastating.
Now? This will have a much smaller impact than you imagine.
Biden doesn't need to prove Trump isn't a great guy. Everyone and their mother, including the fetus, knows what Trump is all about at this point.
"At least I'm not Trump!" isn't a winning strategy this election. Biden gotta actually work for this.
Making Trump an unacceptable option due to his criminal activity and contempt for democracy is certainly a winning strategy. Republicans have been campaigning on a policy devoid platform of “Democrats are bad” for decades now because it works. No one has required the GOP to create a policy platform (they still don’t have one other than give Trump more power), yet the expectation exists for Democrats only? Makes no sense. Policy does not move voters to the polls. Fear and anger do.
Biden needs to scare the shit out of voters. Explain what a dictatorial Trump presidency will look like- immigrant concentration camps, persecution of minorities, naked corruption, future pandemics, jailing of all dissenting journalists and women who get abortions, re-writing the constitution with his corrupt Supreme Court, further stripping of voting rights, and no transition out of presidential power for the rest of his life. Tell voters what they are signing up for if they vote for Trump.
The Democrats and Republicans have different ideal strategies because they're different types of parties. The Democrat party has a less focused identity to mobilize voters with. Part of that is because its voter base is more heterogenous and has different goals - e.g. rich white women in the suburbs have many different interests from poor black men in inner cities, even though both are more likely than not Democrat. Part of that reduced focus is because Democrat ideals challenge traditional power structures more than Republican ones, so people tend to pursue them more tepidly, and the D party ends up as a sorta uninspiring glob of progressivism and status quo that's harder for people to mobilize around, whether they're progressive or pro-status quo. It's easy to say "The Democrats say they're anti-authoritarianism, but look at their continued support and weaponization of police, they're compromising their ideals." I see almost no one say that Republicans aren't religious enough, aren't heteronormative enough, or aren't nostalgic enough. From their more focused ideological point, it's more effective for Republicans to paint Democrats as attacking ideals that Republicans, overall, care more (intensely) about and are more united on.
What do I think the ideal strategy is for Dems, then? Idk, I'm not a campaign strategist :). In a more serious answer, with the Democrats' larger but more-uncaring base, I think a natural angle to keep pushing forward on is making it less and less inconvenient for people to vote, so that they vote more despite caring less. Carpooling initiatives to get people to voting centers, for example. Continuing to ring the alarm bell that the Democrats have been ringing for 8 years feels less effective-people cared about the alarm bell of worldwide pandemic for a year or two, but then they largely (with exceptions) stopped caring and just wanted to return to normal patterns of behavior. (Especially since trump was a criminal to most people with eyes from the beginning.)
What do I think the ideal strategy is for Dems, then? Idk, I'm not a campaign strategist :). In a more serious answer, with the Democrats' larger but more-uncaring base, I think a natural angle to keep pushing forward on is making it less and less inconvenient for people to vote, so that they vote more despite caring less. Carpooling initiatives to get people to voting centers, for example. Continuing to ring the alarm bell that the Democrats have been ringing for 8 years feels less effective-people cared about the alarm bell of worldwide pandemic for a year or two, but then they largely (with exceptions) stopped caring and just wanted to return to normal patterns of behavior. (Especially since trump was a criminal to most people with eyes from the beginning.)
In the Trump era, the Democrats unifying message is democracy. Being an heterogeneous tent party is exactly why policy appeals less effective. Hillary Clinton had a focused group-based policy for everything. It didn’t inspire anyone.
The relevant example is the Gaza conflict. There are significant “pro-Palestine” and “pro-Israel” wings in the Democratic Party. What is a policy that unifies both contingents?
The alternative (convicted felon Trump) wants to wipe Gaza completely off the map.
The relevant example is the Gaza conflict. There are significant “pro-Palestine” and “pro-Israel” wings in the Democratic Party. What is a policy that unifies both contingents?
The alternative (convicted felon Trump) wants to wipe Gaza completely off the map.
I don't think Trump's policy on Israel can get any worse than it is now honestly, the rhetoric will just be a lot more cruel and blunt.
There will be no goals of ceasefire or two-state solution if convicted felon Trump returns to the White House. Israel will be able to do whatever it wants in Gaza. How is that not worse?
Nvm the first prognostics were actually wrong and it turns out that BJP gets ~240 seats, losing 52 seats compared to 2019 so they need other parties from NDA bloc to govern this time around and are well below 360+ seats together (BJP alone even further away) to change the consitution.
Congress as second strongest party is still way behind with 99 seats, but they get 50+ more than in last election. So kind of a "loss" for the ruling party even if they still will govern in India for the next 5 years.
The Trump admin already offered their own 2-state solution last time they were in power, it was just laughably awful and completely lopsided against the Palestinians. Also what is the Biden admin realistically doing against Israel in Gaza? He laid out an ultimatum to not bomb Rafah and they did so anyways.
RaikouLover can you please enlighten us as to why the post above was dismissed with a haha react? Not sure you're following the same war as the rest of us. I look forward to your response.
- Status