Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
vcczar

Two Questions: What if a Landslide Occurs?

Recommended Posts

Here are two questions for you (w/ some subquestions):

  1. What happens to the Democratic Party if Trump wins in a landslide in 2020? How will the party have to change? What will the Democratic party of the 2030s be like? Any other thoughts on this topic? 
  2. Same question but for the Republican Party. What happens if Trump and the Republicans lose in a landslide in 2020? How will the party have to change? What will the GOP of the 2030s be like? What happens with Trump's base? Any other thoughts on this topic? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.  It depends on who the nominee is.  If it's Biden or another moderate, the party moves hard left.  If it's Sanders or another from the far left, the party moves back to moderation.  

2.  I'm not sure that it does change -- at least, not fast enough to notice in the 2030s.  This is going to be the party of Trump for the forseeable future, long after Trump is gone.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Here are two questions for you (w/ some subquestions):

  1. It depends on who ended up as their nominee. If it was Sanders/Warren AOC and people like this will have a very hard time. Democrats will realize that moderate views and heartland values are true weapon. If it was Biden, people like AOC will think to have their 15 Minutes to claim the party leadership. This will lead to a further outgoing of moderates in the Democratic Party, which will lead to an increase of the Republican voting share
  2. Haley, Rubio, Cotton, Graham, John James, Charlie Baker and others will (re)gain ground. Trump's base will eventually fade away, because the aforementioned candidates will need to adopt some policies of Trump in order to appease his electorate. Despite this flip-flopping they will remain more electable than Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

This is going to be the party of Trump for the forseeable future, long after Trump is gone. 

Even if he loses as the incumbent in a landslide? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Even if he loses as the incumbent in a landslide? 

Yes, because Trump's not going to disappear.  He's going to be just as active on Twitter, and he'll be just as dominating in media once he's not the President anymore.  He'll have a new enemy that all of the Republican party can hate (whoever wins the nomination.)

I don't see an incentive for the Republican Party to move away from Trump -- even if he loses re-election, he will still be the only Republican to have ever won a Presidential election in the past 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Yes, because Trump's not going to disappear.  He's going to be just as active on Twitter, and he'll be just as dominating in media once he's not the President anymore.  He'll have a new enemy that all of the Republican party can hate (whoever wins the nomination.)

I don't see an incentive for the Republican Party to move away from Trump -- even if he loses re-election, he will still be the only Republican to have ever won a Presidential election in the past 20 years.

Lost the popular vote twice. Would be the primary cause for its defeat in 2020. GOP who were reluctantly backing him wouldn't be bound to him anymore. It seems like they'd kind of just want to shut him out and just pay lip service to win over some of his supporters. 

I can't think of a single president to lose re-election that carried on as a leader after their defeat.

  • Taft lost and retired to the SC. 
  • Hoover lost and was pretty much shunned, for the most party, until about 10 years later when he kind of became a respectable senior party leader without any power. 
  • Truman dropped out of a brief reelection bid and got the Hoover treatment until the 1960s. 
  • LBJ dropped out of a brief reelection bid and kind of went into hiding. 
  • Ford pretty much disappeared after a brief attempt by him to be Reagan's VP so long as he'd accept a co-presidency. 
  • Carter was pretty much ridiculed until he got very old and turned into the American version of the Dali Lama 
  • Bush disappeared until his son became president. 

I think if Trump loses in a landslide, he gets shunned. Trump's significantly smaller base (would have to be to lose in a landslide) would have to choose between allowing Democrats to win or keep voting for Reps (Sort of how Progressives like me feel about the Democrats, but I still vote for them, even if they're Clinton). Trump goes back to his businesses and bankruptcies, probably gets investigated since he hasn't the protection of the presidency, constantly Twitters but is ignored by his party which will just keep reiterating a landslide defeat. The party adopts the more popular policies of Trump, which sort of diffuses any change in leadership, but ignores those that follow the cult of Trump, including the cult leader himself. Charlie Baker, Larry Hogan , Susana Martinez fight for the party vs. Tom Cotton, Ben Sasse, and Cruz and Crenshaw of TX. I think Baker becomes a nominee in 2030 if Trump loses in a landslide. Otherwise, I think it will be Cotton or Crenshaw. 

If Democrats lose because of Biden, I do think the Left Wing of the party takes over with Ocasio-Cortez as the most likely leader since Sanders and Warren will be too old. Gabbard might get more attention. Make it sort of more of a battle between Social Democratic vs. Progressive Libertarianism. 

If Warren is the nominee and is landslided, then I think Booker, Buttigieg, O'Rourke and other younger and relatively more moderate Dems become strong candidates in 2030. 

This all said, I doubt any landslide occurs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Lost the popular vote twice.

We live in a country where that doesn't matter at all.  It's a talking point for those who lose, not an actual area of concern for anyone who wants to win the election.  The popular vote is worth nothing, as election after election has proven.
 

18 minutes ago, vcczar said:

GOP who were reluctantly backing him wouldn't be bound to him anymore. It seems like they'd kind of just want to shut him out and just pay lip service to win over some of his supporters. 

Sure, but they've already handcuffed themselves to him.  Anyone who was not firmly against him all along will be met with eyerolls when they claim they were secretly concerned.  And for those who WERE firmly against him all along...I mean...who are we even talking about, at this point?  I can't think of a single Republican who has taken a REAL stand against him the entire time.  Maaaaybe the people who decided to retire.  But they just went off quietly into the night rather than actually oppose him.  

There is no shutting Trump out.  He has access to social media, and has every reporter on speed dial.  And if you're playing lip service, then you are DEFINITELY still bound to him in the public eye.  Trump himself will see to that -- you're either his best friend or his enemy.  There is no middle ground with him.

There are no votes to be gained by shunning (or pretending to shun) Trump, because voters who were against Trump are well aware that you were silent (at best) during his presidency -- if not outright complicit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Here are two questions for you (w/ some subquestions):

  1. What happens to the Democratic Party if Trump wins in a landslide in 2020? How will the party have to change? What will the Democratic party of the 2030s be like? Any other thoughts on this topic? 
  2. Same question but for the Republican Party. What happens if Trump and the Republicans lose in a landslide in 2020? How will the party have to change? What will the GOP of the 2030s be like? What happens with Trump's base? Any other thoughts on this topic? 

1. It truly depends on who the nominee is. If it's a moderate like Biden then the party is likely to move left just as the opposite happened with the Republicans after the '08 election. If it's someone like Sanders and Warren then I expect them to bunker down and focus on the midterms, which I expect would have good gains for the Democrats. The party in the 2030's might be more left than what it is right now. 

2. If Trump looses in a landslide I expect Trump to become too toxic to compare yourself to. I would expect them to move slightly back to the middle. I expect the party to be more moderate, and diverse in the 2030's as with demographics changing I don't really see the Republicans able to continue to win national elections at the rate they have been. But it's all speculation anyways so who really knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

1. It truly depends on who the nominee is. If it's a moderate like Biden then the party is likely to move left just as the opposite happened with the Republicans after the '08 election. If it's someone like Sanders and Warren then I expect them to bunker down and focus on the midterms, which I expect would have good gains for the Democrats. The party in the 2030's might be more left than what it is right now.

If I may ask, although obviously the Congressional and State-level in many states shift to the right happened after the Republican Presidential defeat in 2008, how is this this seen in Presidential nominees after 2008. Romney was only marginally more to the right than McCain, and even that couldn't really be trusted due to endless campaign flip-flipping and the fact that he, as a State Governor and on a State level had created the very medical coverage jaberwocky and Frankenstein's monster insurance plan he was campaigning against, as a big part of his platform to dismantle Federally, before it ever became Federal, and, of course, Trump has no meaningful platform, ideology, or principals other than his own ego and self-promotion. So, I can't see this sharp right-wing shift in Republican PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES since their 2008 defeat AT ALL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Actinguy said:

1.  It depends on who the nominee is.  If it's Biden or another moderate, the party moves hard left.  If it's Sanders or another from the far left, the party moves back to moderation.  

2.  I'm not sure that it does change -- at least, not fast enough to notice in the 2030s.  This is going to be the party of Trump for the forseeable future, long after Trump is gone.  

Without Trump, who'll keep the "Trump" in the party, and stop people like Cruz, Paul, Cotton, Rubio, or others like them from trying to reassert leadership - even, in two-faced political rhetoric, using every failure and flaw of the Trump Presidency, which many of them had meekly gone along with, as ammunition for their cause. I'm not sure who you see as the obvious "heir-apparent" to Trump or the "taskmaster" of keeping Trumpism in the party you see as being there. This is one of the biggest flaws of cults of personality or "the leader principal" (a concept of political party leadership and organization created by the Fascist Parties of the '20's to '40's, but that spread to other party structures and political situations - others we can also see in parts of the world that aren't actually fascistic in nature) - when the leader's gone, it's never truly the leader's party anymore...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, vcczar said:

Here are two questions for you (w/ some subquestions):

  1. What happens to the Democratic Party if Trump wins in a landslide in 2020? How will the party have to change? What will the Democratic party of the 2030s be like? Any other thoughts on this topic? 
  2. Same question but for the Republican Party. What happens if Trump and the Republicans lose in a landslide in 2020? How will the party have to change? What will the GOP of the 2030s be like? What happens with Trump's base? Any other thoughts on this topic? 

1. The left wing will continue to gain, especially if Biden is the nominee.

2. The party will have a civil war in 2024.  Whichever side wins will consolidate power.  Trump's endorsement could be vital even if he loses by a large margin.  His base would probably follow his recommendations.  The fiscal conservatives will also attempt to assert their position in the party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Patine said:

Without Trump, who'll keep the "Trump" in the party

Voters.

Voters will keep the “Trump” in the party.

Who will be their next candidate?  I don’t know.  It seems like they’ll accept any bozo off the street, so it’s hard to project.  

They just want someone who will engage in the most racist, sexist policies available.

Sadly, that is not a short list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The racism Trump has tapped into is a reaction to the US having its first black president.  You could see it growing while Obama was still in office.  As we get further removed from that, it will recede back into the less overt type of racism seen under Clinton and Bush.  Trump will have no lasting impact or legacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Voters.

Voters will keep the “Trump” in the party.

Who will be their next candidate?  I don’t know.  It seems like they’ll accept any bozo off the street, so it’s hard to project.  

They just want someone who will engage in the most racist, sexist policies available.

Sadly, that is not a short list.

But, without Trump himself as leader, it's not really a "Trump' party, because the sole element making it a "Trump" party is Trump as the leader - because he has no ideology, platform, or real beliefs or convictions other than his own ego and self-promotion, and maybe a campaigning style that he personally does, but is not really a "party thing,", there's nothing else to be really be a "Trump" element without Trump as leader. Also, Trump did not introduce racism, sexism, and anti-immigrant sentiment to American politics - they were there before the nation was born, within the 13 Colonies. Now I know you haven't studied political history on the level I have, especially international trends abroad that give better insight to this type of phenomenon than American political history readily does, but I am telling you, as having done such extensive research, that these "cult of personality" based political movements almost never last beyond the tenure of their "leader-figure." Also, I think social fear and anxiety partially also affect your certainty in your pronouncements here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

But, without Trump himself as leader, it's not really a "Trump' party, because the sole element making it a "Trump" party is Trump as the leader - because he has no ideology, platform, or real beliefs or convictions other than his own ego and self-promotion, and maybe a campaigning style that he personally does, but is not really a "party thing,", there's nothing else to be really be a "Trump" element without Trump as leader. Also, Trump did not introduce racism, sexism, and anti-immigrant sentiment to American politics - they were there before the nation was born, within the 13 Colonies. Now I know you haven't studied political history on the level I have, especially international trends abroad that give better insight to this type of phenomenon than American political history readily does, but I am telling you, as having done such extensive research, that these "cult of personality" based political movements almost never last beyond the tenure of their "leader-figure." Also, I think social fear and anxiety partially also affect your certainty in your pronouncements here.

We are saying the same thing.  The Trumpiness of the Republican Party is not unique to Trump at all.  He is reflective of the voters who put him there.  Even when he is gone, those voters won't leave.  They will find another person...perhaps a true believer, perhaps an empty shell willing to do whatever it takes to get their ego stroked...to continue to advocate racist, sexist policies.

As for my certainty:  I was certain in 2016 that Trump was a meaningless blimp with no chance of winning the Presidency.  

I am certain I will not make that mistake again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

We are saying the same thing.  The Trumpiness of the Republican Party is not unique to Trump at all.  He is reflective of the voters who put him there.  Even when he is gone, those voters won't leave.  They will find another person...perhaps a true believer, perhaps an empty shell willing to do whatever it takes to get their ego stroked...to continue to advocate racist, sexist policies.

As for my certainty:  I was certain in 2016 that Trump was a meaningless blimp with no chance of winning the Presidency.  

I am certain I will not make that mistake again.

The difference in what we're saying, I suppose, is that you believe Trump is a socio-political "cause" of these things, whereas I believe he is a "symptom" of these things. That has often been one of our big disagreements on Trump and his role in affairs, effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

The difference in what we're saying, I suppose, is that you believe Trump is a socio-political "cause" of these things, whereas I believe he is a "symptom" of these things. That has often been one of our big disagreements on Trump and his role in affairs, effectively.

Trump was elected by people who wanted him to act exactly as he has been acting.

He then encouraged these people to become even worse.

We may have always had Nazis, but they weren't marching in the street before.

We have certainly had child molesters all along, but they weren't running for Senate with the sitting President's endorsement.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Trump was elected by people who wanted him to act exactly as he has been acting.

He then encouraged these people to become even worse.

We may have always had Nazis, but they weren't marching in the street before.

We have certainly had child molesters all along, but they weren't running for Senate with the sitting President's endorsement.

 

See, even though the term Nazi, as well as Fascist, Socialist, and Communist, are bandied about a LOT in modern political and social debate in the United States, I would dare less than 5% of the U.S. population is an adherent to any of those ideologies in COMBINED numbers, when those words are PROPERLY defined, and not sloppily and loosely done for political attack and slander. Those words refer to VERY specific socio-political ideologies, beliefs, frameworks, and contexts, in a specific combination - they are NOT generic words for "far-right-racist-sexist-anti-immigrant-warmonger," or "far-left-big-government" respectively. Even the majority of Americans who wave swaztikas and sickles-and-hammers around at rallies are not REALLY true, died-in-the-wool Nazis or Communists - they're just doing so out of pretense, to hyperbolically make a statement, or getting caught up and carried away with a virolent zeitgeist. These words are HIGHLY overused, and it's distorting social perceptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

See, even though the term Nazi, as well as Fascist, Socialist, and Communist, are bandied about a LOT in modern political and social debate in the United States, I would dare less than 5% of the U.S. population is an adherent to any of those ideologies in COMBINED numbers, when those words are PROPERLY defined, and not sloppily and loosely done for political attack and slander. Those words refer to VERY specific socio-political ideologies, beliefs, frameworks, and contexts, in a specific combination - they are NOT generic words for "far-right-racist-sexist-anti-immigrant-warmonger," or "far-left-big-government" respectively. Even the majority of Americans who wave swaztikas and sickles-and-hammers around at rallies are not REALLY true, died-in-the-wool Nazis or Communists - they're just doing so out of pretense, to hyperbolically make a statement, or getting caught up and carried away with a virolent zeitgeist. These words are HIGHLY overused, and it's distorting social perceptions.

Man...even when I try to agree with you, you find something to rant about anyway.

Virolent zeitgeist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Virolent zeitgeist.

Indeed. A very good term if one is viewing things in a long-term, forward-thinking way. This, too, will pass - as hard as it is to believe now. I am no fan of Donald Trump, and he should soon be shown out the backdoor of the White House with his overpriced luggage - but he's not nearly as much of a socio-political novelty or innovation as he's made out to be (except for his incessant - and unstatesmanlike - use of Twitter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

Now I know you haven't studied political history on the level I have, especially international trends abroad that give better insight to this type of phenomenon than American political history readily does, but I am telling you, as having done such extensive research, that these "cult of personality" based political movements almost never last beyond the tenure of their "leader-figure." Also, I think social fear and anxiety partially also affect your certainty in your pronouncements here.

r/iamverysmart

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SilentLiberty said:

r/ihavereddit

r/okugotme

I've honestly never seen that sub, strong move good sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

r/okugotme

I've honestly never seen that sub, strong move good sir.

There's a president infinity sub too, not super active but it is there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reagan04 said:

r/iamverysmart

 

 

1 hour ago, SilentLiberty said:

r/ihavereddit

What, prey tell, are you too going on about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...