POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[Montmorency]

18 Republican state governments are currently petitioning the Supreme Court to overturn the election results. That is the vast majority of Republican state governments.

That their vice signalling has a probability of one in a quadrillion-to-the-fourth-power of effecting a judicial outcome does not change the consistent overt intent of Republican politicians to overthrow the republic. Wherein is also implicated the support of most of the Republican base for securing illegitimate supremacy.

Most of you should have familiarity with the Prisoner's Dilemma concept or the sense to interpret its visualization:

Again ascribing to me what I didn't say and spouting vitriol at anyone who doesn't agree that all Democrats are angels while all Republicans are satans.

For the last time:

I'm not on anybody's side. Any US administration that will support Ukraine is good for me.
Both sides were engaged in bullyings, lies and misdemeanor.

If someone commits a crime (WHATEVER SIDE) put him in prison.

People had various reasons for voting for Trump. We never had a chance to listen to a person who could explain his opting for Trump. I expect he would have a lot to say in defense of his choice and in condemnation of the opposite option.

Public peace will not be any nearer if you promote hatred of people who have a different political stance.

As I've been taught when I first appeared on these boards, one can't take seriously the opinion of a random guy emotionally invested in what he is writing about.

Facts matter. Truth matters. It's bad of you not to care about facts or truth - and that should go for any topic, not just American politics. It is not possible to communicate with someone who does not care about facts or truth, on even such a banality as the weather. Don't do you.

I like the phrase "bonkers superfecta": Illogical, irrelevant, ahistorical, and factually-incorrect. I would add "ethically-challenged." To wrap the ribbon on this heartfelt exchange of Gilrandir's idea that noticing, describing, and reviling civilizational crimes is even worse than the (ongoing!) crimes themselves (from the person who thinks it's appropriate for armed private citizens to menace peaceful protesters just because they're passing their residence):

"You need to stop struggling and fighting so much," the Strangler murmured, "and understand my motivations, so we can work together on solutions."

"Acckkkkkkk" said The Strangler's victim.

"Hmm," said The Strangler, "you really need to do better at convincing me."

"Glllllkkkk," said The Strangler's victim.

"That's all very well and good in a *perfect* world," said The Strangler. "But we don't live in a perfect world. You're not taking human nature into account. Stranglings are going to happen."

"nnnnngk," said The Strangler's victim.

"But how will you PAY for that?" the Strangler chuckled, strangling away, strangling away.

"Both sides are fighting," said the pundit, from the armchair.

"We sure ARE!" said The Strangler. "Good point!"

But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"

To be sure, what the robber demanded of me - my money - was my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle.

... 'I support peace and unity in all conflicts, it's just that I think Ukrainians are bloodthirsty hysterics who won't let Russians have what is theirs and prosper. NO I AM NOT A PUTINIST.'


Despite it all, I don't bear grudges. Every interaction gets evaluated on its unique characteristics. So just don't come at me in the future with the same behavior and expect a different result.

@Montmorency
I was making a little joke...

Er...

What's the academic picture on Affective strategies in attitude change?

[ReluctantSamurai]

18 Republican state governments are currently petitioning the Supreme Court to overturn the election results. That is the vast majority of Republican state governments.

https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/tr...and-wisconsin/

They are: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia.

[Gilrandir]

The Simpsons, Season 23, Episode 496 "Politically Inept, with Homer Simpson"

Homer: Yeah, maybe I'll vote Democrat. The great thing is, when they get in, they act like Republicans.

[ReluctantSamurai]

The great thing is, when they get in, they act like Republicans

The GOP of today doesn't even remotely resemble the GOP of eight years ago when that episode aired. The GOP of today want's to subvert the will of the people, at the cost of democracy. The Democrats, with all of their shortcomings and failings, at least recognize that there needs to be a smooth transfer of power when they lose, and that subverting democracy because you refuse to acknowledge the other party is harmful to the nation.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-fraud/617354/

Armed protesters showing up at the homes of elected officials to force them to overturn the outcome of the presidential election, especially in a state where Trump-supporting militants were caught plotting to kidnap the governor, Gretchen Whitmer, is obviously disturbing. Protesting government officials, even for grievances you or I might find absurd, is a fundamental constitutional right. The presence of firearms among the protesters, however, as well as the decision to protest at her residence instead of her workplace, add elements of coercion.

Questioning election results is a staple of partisan rhetoric, of course. Democratic voters and pundits, and occasionally elected officials, have advanced their own baseless conspiracies to explain political losses. The distinction is that the Democratic Party’s leadership, understanding that the peaceful transfer of power is crucial to a functional democracy—or fearing the political cost of failing to honor it—has typically dismissed those conspiracies rather than embracing them, denying them needed oxygen. Some Democrats fumed about voting machines in Ohio in 2004, but that did not stop John Kerry from quickly conceding; furious liberals indulged fantasies that Russian interference in 2016 included manipulation of vote tallies, but Hillary Clinton conceded the morning after the election.

That is not the case today. Insisting that the election was stolen by fraud, or that the outcome is somehow in doubt, remains the majority position among Republican elected officials. Only 27 of the 249 Republicans in Congress are willing to publicly acknowledge Biden’s victory.

The majority of people who make such declarations understand that in fact, Trump did not win, that he received fewer votes than his opponent, and that the Electoral College result reflects that loss. But they support Trump’s claims that the vote was fraudulent, and his efforts to pressure Republican officials in key states to overturn the result. To Trump’s strongest supporters, Biden’s win is a fraud because his voters should not count to begin with, and because the Democratic Party is not a legitimate political institution that should be allowed to wield power even if they did.

The Republican base’s fundamental belief, the one that Trump used to win them over in the first place, the one that ties the election conspiracy to birtherism and to Trump’s sneering attack on the Squad’s citizenship, is that Democratic victories do not count, because Democratic voters are not truly American. It’s no accident that the Trump campaign’s claims have focused almost entirely on jurisdictions with high Black populations.

The absence of not only evidence of any systemic fraud, but even compelling anecdotes that might be misleadingly trumpeted throughout right-wing media, has not deterred the president or his supporters. Republican legislators are already scheming to put new restrictions on the franchise, justified by claims of fraud so baseless that not even their handpicked judges can find a foothold to sustain them. The necessary ingredient is not actual voter fraud, but Democratic victory at the ballot box, real or potential.

When they say the 2020 election was stolen, Trumpists are expressing their view that the votes of rival constituencies should not count, even though they understand, on some level, that they do. They are declaring that the nation belongs to them and them alone, whether or not they actually comprise a majority, because they are the only real Americans to begin with.

Oh, and btw, here's the Republican Party platform from 2012:

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docu...party-platform

This platform affirms that America has always been a place of grand dreams and even grander realities; and so it will be again, if we return government to its proper role, making it smaller and smarter. If we restructure government's most important domestic programs to avoid their fiscal collapse. If we keep taxation, litigation, and regulation to a minimum. If we celebrate success, entrepreneurship, and innovation. If we lift up the middle class. If we hand over to the next generation a legacy of growth and prosperity, rather than entitlements and indebtedness.

As we embark upon this critical mission, we are not without guidance. We possess an owner's manual: the Constitution of the United States, the greatest political document ever written. That sacred document shows us the path forward. Trust the people. Limit government. Respect federalism. Guarantee opportunity, not outcomes. Adhere to the rule of law. Reaffirm that our rights come from God, are protected by government, and that the only just government is one that truly governs with the consent of the governed.

We respectfully submit this platform to the American people. It is both a vision of where we are headed and an invitation to join us in that journey. It is about the great dreams and opportunities that have always been America and must remain the essence of America for generations to come.

Not an unreasonable platform. Especially the part about an "owner's manual" (ie. the Constitution), and "adherence to the rule of law" and that the only just government is one that truly governs with the consent of the governed. Fast forward to today---there are only 27 Republican members of Congress out of 249, that are willing to "adhere to the rule of law." There are 18 Republican-led states that are suing the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, because they don't agree that Biden legally won the popular vote and therefore the electoral votes in those states, even though all four of those states have certified that Biden won the popular vote, and three of the four have submitted their results to Congress. Whatever happened to "the consent of the governed??

The Republican Party platform for 2020----oh yeah, that's right, they were too lazy to draft a new one so they used the one from 2016:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/25/u...-platform.html

After the resolution was adopted over the weekend, Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign late Sunday night announced “a set of core priorities” for a second term in the form of 50 bullet points under the heading “Fighting for You!” The list functions as a greatest hits of Mr. Trump’s recent proclamations, including, under his plans for confronting the coronavirus crisis, pledges such as “Return to Normal in 2021” and “Develop a Vaccine by The End Of 2020,” which, of course, take place entirely in Mr. Trump’s current term in office.

The priorities document, which for reasons unexplained capitalizes nearly every word in it, also pledges to “Hold China Fully Accountable for Allowing the Virus to Spread around the World.” There is also a pledge to send a manned mission to Mars and “Get Allies to Pay their Fair Share.”

There is no mention of abortion or the Second Amendment, which have long been animating features of the social conservative wing of Republican politics. The only foreign country mentioned by name is China, under a section titled “end our reliance on China.” A section on innovation offers a goal to “Partner with Other Nations to Clean Up our Planet’s Oceans.” It offers no specifics.

The GOP was so lazy and so uninspired, that they forgot to edit the 2016 document resulting in these hilarious gaffes:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/u...-platform.html

“The survival of the internet as we know it is at risk,” the platform reads. “Its gravest peril originates in the White House, the current occupant of which has launched a campaign, both at home and internationally, to subjugate it to agents of government.”

“The Middle East is more dangerous now than at any time since the Second World War,” the platform reads. “Whatever their disagreements, presidents of both parties had always prioritized America’s national interests, the trust of friendly governments, and the security of Israel. That sound consensus was replaced with impotent grandstanding on the part of the current President and his Secretaries of State. The results have been ruinous for all parties except Islamic terrorists and their Iranian and other sponsors.”

“That same provision of law is now being used by bureaucrats — and by the current President of the United States — to impose a social and cultural revolution upon the American people by wrongly redefining sex discrimination to include sexual orientation or other categories,” the platform reads. “Their agenda has nothing to do with individual rights; it has everything to do with power.”

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Er...

What's the academic picture on Affective strategies in attitude change?

That's actually a pretty old one. Link

Appeals to logic and reasoning are harder to make and harder to get folks to listen but have the better long term impact.

Appeals to affect work quickly, don't require any linear support, etc. but are subject to being more transient and replaced by the next "moving" message.

Its one of the reasons Trump (and other demagogues) have to keep things stirred up and keep the rallies going -- if the emotions cool and thinking begins, then some of the audience is lost.

[Montmorency]

@rory_20_uk
I've talked some about this referendum that passed in Alaska, but I'm not sure if I mentioned it on the Org. It's a fantastic electoral reform and one you might like. Hopefully the Republicans can't get it ruled unconstitutional (we could take the hit on severing and eliminating the campaign finance disclosure rule if need be).

A "yes" vote supported making changes to Alaska's election policies, including:

* requiring persons and entities that contribute more than $2,000 that were themselves derived from donations, contributions, dues, or gifts to disclose the true sources (as defined in law) of the political contributions;

* replacing partisan primaries with open top-four primaries for state executive, state legislative, and congressional offices; and

* establishing ranked-choice voting for general elections, including the presidential election, in which voters would rank the candidates.

The majority of House Republicans have filed an amicus in support of the suit to overturn the election. Hell of a kayfabe.

At this point there's more of a fig leaf to being an open supporter of Alternativ fuer Deutschland than of the Republican party.

106 House Republicans are spending critical time when people are starving and small businesses are shuttering trying to overturn the results of our election, but please tell us more about how “both sides are just as bad”

As this op-ed by esteemed professor Brian Klaas ruminates, we have the problem of millions of voters who are committed to authoritarian psychology and politics.

As we move into the next phase of repair and rebuilding, though, there’s an uncomfortable truth all Americans must now face. The problem wasn’t just President Trump. The problem was also us.

Every so often, history produces dangerous demagogues. When that happens, citizens are tested: Do you unite to reject a politics of fear, division and authoritarianism? Or does the country splinter, with half fighting back and the other half cheerleading as a would-be despot seeks to undermine democracy to consolidate power?

Now we know the answer: America splintered. When presented with a man who saw democracy as a pesky inconvenience, a huge chunk of the American electorate didn’t just accept him. They cheered, applauded and sported his memorabilia. They embraced him not in spite of his authoritarian impulses, but because of them.

To understand why this happened, we have to acknowledge a depressing reality: A substantial proportion of Americans are “authoritarian voters.” In other words, they crave the leadership of a strongman without significant checks. Moreover, their political preferences are only about outcomes, not process. If they want to ban Muslims from entering the country or to stop abortions, authoritarian voters aren’t particularly bothered if the norms of democracy are shredded, so long as they get their way.

A Vox-Morning Consult survey found that just under half of White American respondents scored high on measures of authoritarian personality, a proxy for authoritarian voting. Nearly 1 in 5 scored very high. Of these authoritarians lurking among us, nearly 7 in 10 were self-identified Republican voters. And for them, Trump was a godsend.

These are not just common clay of the new West, they are Good Americans, many bound to become the Very Best.

Republicans had positioned themselves as the defenders of cultural order and traditional values, which had the unanticipated consequence of attracting a lot of authoritarian voters to their ranks.

One cannot understand contemporary American history without realizing that this was in no way unanticipated.

In that way, when it comes to our diseased democracy, Trump is both symptom and cause. He activated latent authoritarians who would have voted for a Trumpian figure if one had been on the ballot. But he also made the language, behavior and policy of despotism mainstream. In short, he activated authoritarian voters that already existed, but also spent the past four years transforming plenty of constitutional conservatives into cheerleaders for American autocracy.

But this is also true. After Trump there is no going back for many people. As bad as Republican voters were, they are now - collectively and individually - much worse. They have changed to become more hateful, more fearful, and more dangerous. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities, after all, and the Republican noosphere is fully insane at this point.

It’s clear that elected Republicans — who largely refuse to answer basic factual questions about the winner of the presidential election — know that their voters are authoritarians. And they are catering to them.

Well, duh. One piece of common wisdom that has long been overripe to discard is the idea that Republican politicians are categorically "savvier" about what is real than the Republican base are. But they both consume all the same media and share many of the same psychological tendencies and grievances; Republican politicians one and all are drawn from the pool of Republican voters. The cultural distinction has vanished. As the oldest generations in office pass out of power, so further will whatever rarefied institutional memory there was.

I sure hope the Old Guard Democrats go first.

Unfortunately, it’s not only these authoritarian voters whom we have to worry about. There is also evidence that Americans’ ideological commitment to democracy could be waning with each passing generation. A 2017 article in the Journal of Democracy found that around 3 in 4 Americans who were born in the 1930s said that it was “essential” to live in a democracy. That figure falls with each successive decade of birth, to around 3 in 10 Americans born in the 1980s. (Similar dynamics are showing up across other Western democracies, raising the possibility that generations that didn’t live through fascism or the Cold War have a less rigid personal commitment to democratic values.)

Democracy is not self-repairing. Over time, without citizens who are committed to protecting it, it will eventually die, smashed under the iron fist of a would-be strongman who attracted a big enough chunk of the electorate to go along with him. Trump failed, but it was close.

Hmm, I've seen this sort of finding around political classifications or nationalities, but not around the variable of age cohort.

Hard to overstate the importance of achieving the ability to start getting stuff done.

The other half is much harder, because it’s not about one individual. Instead, it’s about the tens of millions of Americans who, long after Trump is gone, will welcome another aspiring despot with open arms. And that, unfortunately, is the next front in the battle to protect American democracy.

Well, duh.

The Simpsons, Season 23, Episode 496 "Politically Inept, with Homer Simpson"

Homer: Yeah, maybe I'll vote Democrat. The great thing is, when they get in, they act like Republicans.

Besides taking him out of context as Samurai touches on, Homer Simpson isn't the role model you want to emulate.

That's actually a pretty old one. Link

Appeals to logic and reasoning are harder to make and harder to get folks to listen but have the better long term impact.

Appeals to affect work quickly, don't require any linear support, etc. but are subject to being more transient and replaced by the next "moving" message.

Its one of the reasons Trump (and other demagogues) have to keep things stirred up and keep the rallies going -- if the emotions cool and thinking begins, then some of the audience is lost.

That's a good primer, but I was thinking more specifically of the communication of affective states themselves, and their reciprocal conditioning of behavior.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I sure hope the Old Guard Democrats go first.

Man, I really expected her to be in the job until death but now that these articles are coming out I have my doubts she will run again in 2024. Newsom's response to COVID is so mixed I doubt he could win the Senate seat unless he wins the second gubernatorial term and manages to turn things around.

Can we please elect someone from SoCal this time, it has been over 30 years and that guy sucked.

[Gilrandir]

Besides taking him out of context as Samurai touches on, Homer Simpson isn't the role model you want to emulate.

A guy that has a house, two cars, a family, and sleeps all the time at work doing nothing - everybody wants to live like Homer.

[ReluctantSamurai]

A guy that has a house, two cars, a family, and sleeps all the time at work doing nothing

I'd say that pretty accurately describes most of our Congress people, at the moment. For a growing number of Americans, many of whom have already lost their job and health insurance to recession, their house or apartment to foreclosure, and family members to COVID....not so much.

[Gilrandir]

I'd say that pretty accurately describes most of our Congress people, at the moment.

You mean Republican Congress people. It is they who cheat on their wives and kick puppies. Democrats are more of Ned Flanders kind of guys.

[ReluctantSamurai]

You mean Republican Congress people.

Incorrect. I meant ALL of Congress. If I had wanted to target just Republicans, I would have referenced the GOP only...

It is they who cheat on their wives and kick puppies.

Poor attempt at sarcasm. There are plenty of examples of corporatism, corruption, and criminal activity amongst Democrats, which is again why I referenced the ENTIRE Congress.

Democrats are more of Ned Flanders kind of guys.

Been watching a lot of The Simpson's lately, I see. It's no wonder you have such a fantasy world-view of America...

[Montmorency]

A guy that has a house, two cars, a family, and sleeps all the time at work doing nothing - everybody wants to live like Homer.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Being 1-51 pretty much ensures you get fired in the sports world. Hopefully, this is that last nail:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ection-results

Trump had long expressed hope that a disputed election would go before the supreme court, to which he appointed three justices during his term, ensuring a 6-3 conservative majority. Earlier on Friday he tweeted: “If the Supreme Court shows great Wisdom and Courage, the American People will win perhaps the most important case in history, and our Electoral Process will be respected again!”

It didn't take courage, but SCOTUS showed wisdom and kept the electoral process respected for at least the next 4 years.

Donald J. Trump---YOU'RE FIRED...

[Montmorency]

Being 1-51 pretty much ensures you get fired in the sports world. Hopefully, this is that last nail:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ection-results



It didn't take courage, but SCOTUS showed wisdom and kept the electoral process respected for at least the next 4 years.

Donald J. Trump---YOU'RE FIRED...

Some Republican reactions (you can't even use the word "kayfabe," because this is all simultaneously a put-on and a manifestation of deeply-held belief):





Do your part, service guarantees citizenship etc. etc.


I took the time to finally read Michael Anton's notorious "Flight 93 Election" essay from 2016, in which he argued, well, that Trump vs. Clinton was analogous to the choice between letting a plane crash into the Capitol and violently seizing control of the craft (of state!) and driving it into a ditch. (Anton was rewarded with some positions in the Trump government.)

This excerpt struck me:

Whatever the reason for the contradiction, there can be no doubt that there is a contradiction. To simultaneously hold conservative cultural, economic, and political beliefs—to insist that our liberal-left present reality and future direction is incompatible with human nature and must undermine society—and yet also believe that things can go on more or less the way they are going, ideally but not necessarily with some conservative tinkering here and there, is logically impossible.

Let’s be very blunt here: if you genuinely think things can go on with no fundamental change needed, then you have implicitly admitted that conservatism is wrong. Wrong philosophically, wrong on human nature, wrong on the nature of politics, and wrong in its policy prescriptions. ...If your answer—Continetti’s, Douthat’s, Salam’s, and so many others’—is for conservatism to keep doing what it’s been doing—another policy journal, another article about welfare reform, another half-day seminar on limited government, another tax credit proposal—even though we’ve been losing ground for at least a century, then you’ve implicitly accepted that your supposed political philosophy doesn’t matter and that civilization will carry on just fine under leftist tenets. Indeed, that leftism is truer than conservatism and superior to it.

Um, yeah? Facts don't care about your feelings? And your values are dogshit...

This old but evergreening piece further reinforces my ineluctable sense that, conservative ideologies being discredited by the events of the 20th century and beyond at least as comprehensively as one could ever hope Marxism to be, conservatives have had no choice but:

1. Retrench their conservatism
2. Dissociate from reality
3. Embrace revanchist fascism

What makes this era in American history different from post-WW1 (globally) is that most people with conservative instincts* have dismissed the first option but looked at the latter two and said '?Porque no los dos?' - before liquidating the spiritually-treasonous essence within them that made itself known by its Spanish-language irruption. :P

The (one might call) auto-Orwellianism is equally important to and somehow integral to the fascism, in a way that it may not have been before.


*Social conservatism, for whatever reason, has a strong tendency to overrule non-conservatism in other spheres for a given individual