Capitol Hill Blue
Posted By: jgw Social Media - 05/08/21 09:18 PM
Almost every day there is a story about Social Media. Usually its something about how evil it is, how uncontrolled it is, how it is unregulated, etc. It just goes on and on. I remember when Zuckerburg was saying that a solution might be that Gov step in and regulate them. I am also infavor of that. If there was ever a place that needed regulation its Social Media. Its really strange. Everybody seems to use Social Media, everybody is also very upset with Social Media. It just continues to go, on and on and on and on.

Its pretty interesting. There are two sides to regulation. One side wants no regulation. That side believes that if somebody does something that is not right then they should be pillaried and otherwise damaged one way or another. Then the plan is to hold them up as an example to serve as a warning to others of that ilk. A good example of that one is an old person, starving and begging on the street. They wouldn't be there had they made better choices when they were young would be the what they 'real' conservive would say (I have a friend would has actually said this as an excellent example of how others should behave.

The other side (the lefties) believe that regulation is a good thing and necessary for order. In the example above that old person would serve as an example of a problem and it would be up to both sides to decide how to deal with it. Its really pretty simple. Both sides get together, agree there is a problem and then try to work out a solution which both sides would agree on. This would not only solve the problem but the fact that both sides had input would also mean that the solution would not be an extreme problem solved by only one side.

The real problem with the stuff above is that BOTH sides tend towards extreme solutions. The problem thing is also at risk in that one side could say there was no problem at all. Anyway, this is, in theory how its supposed to work. The current 'problem' is that the sides are no longer really talking (with exceptions). In the case of Social Media, however, both sides would agree there is a problem. That being said the fact that everybody uses Social Media means that even sitting down and discussing the problems would probably be a waste of time. The problem with this one is that its a BIG problem wherein nobody has actually gotten past the description of the problem itself! EVERYBODY has a problem with Social Media but, I think, nobody has defined the problem they both know exists.

So, we are in a state where neither side can agree on a definition of the problem let alone the solution.

Just thought I would send this out to see if anybody is even in vague agreement. Its kinda interesting, I wrote this previously and then forgot (I think) to post it. If suddenly there are two of these I have no answer as I couldn't find the first one.

There is also the which is also kinda interesting but non-problem solving but tries. They, basically, also want to see rules/regulation.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Social Media - 05/09/21 12:50 AM
More like the Republican solution for poor elderly folks is to toss them in the wood chipper. The Democratic solution is Social Security. Should they compromise? Just chip those old folks up to the waist? Or in real life, cut their benefits to the point they can have food or prescriptions, but not both?

Compromise on some issues is not viable.
Posted By: jgw Re: Social Media - 05/09/21 04:05 PM
You are right. Many conservatives believe that Social Security has removed the right of individuals to make their own decisions on retirement. They believe that those that are broke, when retired, didn't save enough whilst they were working. They do not, however, take into consideration that here are many who never had enough to set aside anything. Any Democrats, that join up with the other side on this one should not be a Democrat! That is, incidentally, one of the problems with the Democrats. They simply cannot insist on some kind of basic behavior on the part of their members, especially those who blessed the Dems with the "Defund the Police" thing. Their utterances cost the Democrats votes!
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Social Media - 05/11/21 04:16 AM
I think the biggest drag on the Democrats right now is Manchin and Senema. Mitch has already said he's going to oppose everything. If he succeeds, then the Biden administration won't have much to brag about and will probably lose at least the Senate if not both houses in 2022 because of all the states' voter suppression laws. If he can get the new voting rights bill passed, he can keep control.

"Defund the police" was all about the 2020 election. "Modify the filibuster" is the most important factor now.
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/11/21 12:13 PM
I've heard a lot of complains from democrats and some loud enough that on another site suggesting that Manchin and Sinema ought to to join the Republican Party. That makes no sense to me as if they did, it would be the GOP in control of the senate 52-48. Certain then Biden wouldn't be able to accomplish a single thing. Also over looked is Manchin votes the Democratic party line 80% of the time, Sinema 74%.

That's not high enough for a lot of Democrats, but replacing them with a Republican who would vote the democratic party line only 10% of the time if that, also giving the GOP control of the senate seems to me to be absurd.

I did a paper on how ending or doing away would hurt the Democrats more in the long term than be worth any short term political gain. I've been debating whether or not to post it here. It is much like the first use of and the precedence setting use of the nuclear option. A big benefit short term for the Democrats, but a long term hurt being that we now have Kavanaugh and Barrett on the SCOTUS that wouldn't be there if not for the nuclear option first being used by Reid and company. It still would have required 60 votes for cloture.
Posted By: jgw Re: Social Media - 05/11/21 06:41 PM
Biden is dealing with razor thin margins. I am kinda amazed so far. The senate has, so far, passed 12 pieces of actual legislation under Biden (who signed them all into law). Here is a link to that:

I think that is better than Obama did against Mitch (you can control the link above to show you that). We also know that Biden has to go-ahead to have at least 2 more 'relief' bill to he tune of 4 TRILLION dollars which means more money in the pot to spend as well. In other words it may be possible for Biden to buy 2022. That is particularly true with the Republicans working, very hard publicly, to fall apart.

Biden's main problem is paying for anything. I don't think he is going to be able to get any legislation through for that but I didn't think Mitch would let anything through and Biden got 12 through and, apparently thinks he can get more.

In the fullness of time......................
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Social Media - 05/12/21 06:40 AM
Actually, there is no Republican Party anymore. There is The Trump Party, a few non-Trumper Republicans, and the Democrats. If the Trump Party ejects Cheney, maybe she'd like to caucus with the Democrats? Maybe Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski would like to join her? They would be welcomed!

Most in the Trump Party think their only path to reelection is to remain on the USS Trumptanic as it sinks into the chilly North Atlantic. But some old-school Republicans are not that stupid. They might want to be on the winning side.
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/12/21 12:14 PM
I think you're misreading the situation. These Republicans fed up with Trump and most of the party following him, aren't about to become Democrats. You can look at the party affiliation numbers since last Nov 2020. 30% identified as republicans then, today it's 26%. They went into the independent column, they haven't become Democrats as the Democrats still have the 31% today as they did last November.

Murkowski, Romney, Cheney and whoever aren't about to caucus with the Democrats. I'd say they're more or less traditional conservatives who refuse to follow a man with no political ideology or philosophy. A traditional conservative isn't about to join the democratic party. They want to fight for their political ideals and beliefs, which Trump doesn't represent and never has. But neither does the democratic party.
Posted By: jgw Re: Social Media - 05/12/21 06:07 PM
They are now saying that over 100 Republicans want to create a NEW Republican party (I have no idea what they would call it). I also have no idea how they would vote although they did vote the Trump line before. Cheney, for instance, was one of Trump's biggest supporters, when voting, before her fall from Grace and I doubt that is going to change. In other words she likes what they are doing but refuses to lie. Its a VERY strange world! Anyway, I think Biden is still going to have one hell of a time paying for anything.

All that being said the amounts of money Biden is throwing around has now started talk of inflation. I suspect the free money is about gone and money is going to cost. The really interesting thing will be how much the national debt goes up. We are already paying a lot even though the interest is very low. That is going to change bigtime. When that happens its gonna get REALLY interesting!

Anyway, the Republicans, I think, will continue to vote just the way they have been voting and its not gonna change. Biden, I suspect, is going to have a really unfortunate 2022 unless he can work miracles.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Social Media - 05/12/21 11:29 PM
Originally Posted by jgw
All that being said the amounts of money Biden is throwing around has now started talk of inflation. I suspect the free money is about gone and money is going to cost. The really interesting thing will be how much the national debt goes up. We are already paying a lot even though the interest is very low. That is going to change bigtime. When that happens its gonna get REALLY interesting!
Now there's some old fashioned thinking!

One big reason the debt is going up is because we haven't been paying for it for decades! Why start now?

Money is nothing but agreements. One way or another, debts are paid, or discharged, by agreements. Sometimes those agreements are not all that agreeable, if they include dismemberment or death or incarceration, but the debts they do get settled. Usually, the biggest bully gets the most...
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Social Media - 05/13/21 05:14 AM
I said caucus with the Democrats, not become Democrats. When it comes to votes that promote sedition, they might vote with Democrats when they vote against that sedition. They can still be conservative and Democrats can be a mix of liberal, centrist, and conservative. The Trump Party, on the other hand, seems to be the Party of lawlessness, anti-democracy, pro-Putin, etc. Everything the two mainline Parties have agreed to oppose over the years. So a coalition to defeat the Trump Party might be possible.

Once that garbage is buried in the landfill, they can return to arguing over their respective positions.
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/13/21 02:56 PM
Ah yes, Inflation. I've noticed the price of bread has gone up fro 2.50 to over 3.00, meats especially have risen quite a lot. Regardless, here:

"Growing inflation is Biden's hidden tax on working Americans"

Inflation may become a huge issue in 2022 if it isn't reigned in. It does have the potential to over ride the ill feelings most have for Trump, especially among independents. Although Biden now has a 53% approval on the economy, 42% disapproval, that is mostly driven by Democrats who give him an 80% approval rating vs. 13% who disapprove. Now independents, the election deciders show 44% approval, 48% disapproval.

If inflation becomes an election issue, that won't be good news for the Democrats. Perhaps even worst is the trend independents now have for Democrats in congress vs. Republicans in congress. Independent's view of Democratic congress critters 29% favorable/59% unfavorable. Independents view of Republican congress critters, 28% favorable/60% unfavorable.

compare that to independents view of congressional democrats on 6 Feb 2021, 38% favorable/ 51% unfavorable vs. their view of Republicans in congress, 25% favorable/65% unfavorable.

That interesting, at least to me. Of course I'm probably the only one who follows independents very close while tossing the views of Republicans and democrats out the window. I already know how they'll vote, not so with independents.
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/13/21 03:50 PM
Cheney isn't going to caucus with the Democrats which she opposed her entire life. She's going to head a group of anti-Trump Republicans.

Republicans' Overthrow of Liz Cheney Risks Worsening Their Headaches

From the article

By excommunicating Cheney from her position, however, Republican lawmakers have created a host of new problems for their party.

They have underscored the grip that the increasingly unpopular Trump retains on their ranks; demoralized Republicans and independents who want to move on from his tenure; and, perhaps most significantly, emboldened a household-name conservative to take her case against Trumpism far beyond a Capitol conference room.


Yet it’s Trump who, well past Biden’s first-100-day mark, continues to present Republicans with their most vexing problem. At issue: how to accommodate a former president who’s beloved by their core voters, more detested than ever among the broader electorate and consumed with his defeat and campaign of retribution.
Posted By: jgw Re: Social Media - 05/13/21 05:44 PM
Oh, we have been paying! Our problem is that if the current path holds true there could be pressure on the dollar which, in turn, means it gonna take more dollars to buy anything and this is how nations find that their money will eventually become worthless. We are, right now, heading there! Here is an explanation of that.

Oh, historically, I think, this nation has NEVER not had a debt.........
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/13/21 06:57 PM
Jackson was the only president to completely pay off the national debt. There's also talk going around about the Chinese Yen replacing the Dollar as the world's currency. Of course that talk has been constant for the last 10 or so years.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Social Media - 05/13/21 11:34 PM
Originally Posted by jgw
Oh, we have been paying! Our problem is that if the current path holds true there could be pressure on the dollar which, in turn, means it gonna take more dollars to buy anything and this is how nations find that their money will eventually become worthless.
What happens when money becomes worthless, does everybody instantly die?
Posted By: jgw Re: Social Media - 05/14/21 06:51 PM
Nope, everybody just starves. Venezuela, for instance, has an inflation rate of 200,000 This means that their money is worth basically nothing. In other words it buys nothing. My understanding is that they use the dollar and now that one may fail as well if we are not very careful. Vensuela, incidentally was, several years ago, considered the richest nation in the world. What happened was simple - the Socialists took over and everything went to hell.

Money used to be backed up with some kind of something with worth. We used to back ours up with gold and then Nixon took care of that. What happened was that somebody figured out that, given the amount of dollars out there, that there wasn't enough gold, or silver, in the world to back the dollar. Stuff that has been used, in the past, to back money has been salt, tea, saffron, decorated shells, alcohol, cigarettes, cocoa beans, and barley. These days, however, most money is based on simple faith, just like the dollar and has no intrinsic value. Its always amused me. Folks not given to religion, don't believe in God, etc. still have faith - in the Dollar. Its almost religion but not quite.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Social Media - 05/15/21 12:45 AM
Originally Posted by jgw
Nope, everybody just starves. Venezuela, for instance, has an inflation rate of 200,000 This means that their money is worth basically nothing.
Too bad they can't eat money!

Is it possible to back up money with real things of tangible value?
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Social Media - 05/15/21 06:24 AM
I heard a discussion of inflation on Marketplace today. The two economists said what we are seeing are a few flukes occurring at once: Gas prices are high because of the pipeline hack. Used car prices are high because of a car chip shortage, so car manufacturers can't finish their new cars. Lots of manufacturing was disrupted by the Suez canal blockage. And of course the pandemic affects everything. They said these are all temporary events, and will have little effect on inflation in the near term. As for inflation of meat prices, I just bought chicken breasts for 99 cents per pound, which is what I usually pay when they go on sale at the local supermarkets. I also bought a pork shoulder a couple of weeks ago for $1.89 per pound, which is the usual price.

BTW: Hyper inflation does present one bit of underlying value for "worthless" currency. You can use it as toilet paper. The fact that you can exchange bills for coins puts a floor on bills' value because the coins have melt value. Of course here in the US the currency is backed by the ability of the government to collect taxes, I don't really think that is going anywhere!
Posted By: jgw Re: Social Media - 05/16/21 05:36 PM
Its what can happen that has people concerned. You are right about right now but some folks are very sensitive to this sort of stuff especially when you can remember some of what can happen. There are extremes, one of which is Venezuela in which it takes 248210 Venezuelan Bolivars to buy 1 American dollar, for instance. Its interesting, I haven't look it up in a bit but the last time I looked the Dollar has continued to climb in value (makes it a good time to travel. You get, for instance, 1.21 Canadian dollar for one of ours. All this being true there is no reason to panic right now. I think the main cause of concern is Biden plan to raise the national debt by something like 60 trillion dollars. So far its unlikely he will be able to do that right now.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Social Media - 05/17/21 01:00 AM
The usual story: When Republicans want to create more public debt by giving tax cuts to rich people, they say debt doesn't matter. When Democrats want to create more public debt by investing in infrastructure and education, suddenly everybody (including some Democrats) jumps on the Republican concern trolling train about too much debt. There is a big difference between bad debt (looting the treasury for your cronies), and good debt (buying stuff we actually need that has a high ROI.)
Posted By: jgw Re: Social Media - 05/17/21 07:41 PM
I think Biden is going to spend the rest of the year fighting to get what he wants. Next year comes the mid election. If the Dems pay attention, Don't do anything dumb to scare independents they have a chance, due to Republican confusions and fighting, to not only not lose but to win seats. They just gotta pay attention, make their fights private and the stay calm.

I am, incidentally, a very experienced wishful thinker........
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/17/21 08:26 PM
I think your thinking is pretty much right on. It's something I've been saying for eons it seems.

Right now, Georgia seems to be only seat held by the Democrats that is in jeopardy. While the Republicans have three, two due to retirements, Pennsylvania and North Carolina along with Wisconsin where Johnson isn't liked much. The rest seems at this point, to be safe for which ever party who currently holds them. This translate into a 1-2 seat net gain for the democrats in the senate.

The house, who the heck knows. No district lines have been drawn yet. For the party that holds a trifecta, there are some tricks to drawing those lines. Placing two incumbents in the same district if the incumbents aren't of the trifecta's party is one use a lot. Open seats are much more easier to switch or win. Packing minorities into court ordered majority minority districts is another. there's other tricks of the trade.

Independents don't like either party's congressional critters, but they do like Biden. At least so far. But Biden may still be benefiting from not being Trump and behaving presidential and like an adult. with independents.

Cracks are there though, inflation, illegal immigration, foreign policy to name but three. Biden is also benefiting from COVID-19 response. This advantage may wane among independents as COVID begins to go away.

Foreign Policy - Biden has dropped from a high of 56% down to 49%
Immigration - Biden has dropped from 52% down to 39%
Economy - Biden has remained steady here at 53%. inflation hasn't hurt him yet.

Biden's overall job approval, from 56% down to 54%. still very good. Hence the word cracks.

I think the senate will remain in Democratic hands. the House ?????????????????
Posted By: jgw Re: Social Media - 05/18/21 05:12 PM
Apparently we no longer have just Reparations for Blacks but, now, there is a movement to give all national parks to the Indians. I can guarantee you if the Democrats start to preach both of these 2021 is not exactly going to be a good year for the Dems.
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/19/21 09:07 PM
I've not heard a thing about national parks. But reparations, yes.

"According to Reuters/Ipsos polls this month, only one in five respondents agreed the United States should use “taxpayer money to pay damages to descendants of enslaved people in the United States.”

Reparations isn't a hot issue, it doesn't make the top 20 list. Which isn't to say that it won't. If it does, it would be a political loser for the democrats. The same can be said about national parks.

It's interesting that both Schumer and Pelosi have come out and admitted Defund the police really hurt them in the house and senate elections in November 2020. It's should be as plain as the nose on their face. 18% of all Americans supported Defund the police, 46% supported redirecting police funds to other social services, while 53% said the police need to be reformed.

This goes back to words have meanings and most Americans will take the words said as meaning what they say. Defund means do away with funds, Basically doing away with the police all together.

Yeah, I agree that the democrats trying to push legislation through congress on reparations or turning over the national parks to the indians would kill any chances of retaining control of congress. Tell me they ain't that dumb. There are times I really, really believe the Democrats live in a political fantasy world of their own and not in today's world of political reality.
Posted By: logtroll Re: Social Media - 05/19/21 10:43 PM
Originally Posted by perotista
There are times I really, really believe the Democrats live in a political fantasy world of their own and not in today's world of political reality.
Can you define "the Democrats" for me?
Posted By: Greger Re: Social Media - 05/19/21 11:50 PM
Every time someone protests and demands something. Or puts out a petition endorsing something it always winds up that it's something "the democrats" want.

I'm not really in favor of reparations. I just saw something about giving the Indian Nations all the national park lands...I kind of like that idea, There could be no better stewards of the land. (Hypothetically) shite to colored people is a nonstarter however you look at it politically. Even punishing police for murdering them is not popular and will hurt democrats.

Pretty much anything the democrats say or do that republicans wouldn't say or do will hurt them politically.

As I see it the only answer to the conundrum is for the Democrats to become Republicans.

Everyone supporting those crazy liberal ideas should be ejected from the party and encouraged to go back to wherever their ancestors came from.
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/20/21 12:04 AM
Those who come up with these strategies that most Americans oppose. It doesn't take a political rocket scientist to know if going against the will of the majority of Americans could very well lead to an election defeat, a wave election where in this case, the democrats are in control, they lose that control. ALA, 1994 and 2010.

So let me ask you a question, we know if one is honest that Defund the police cost the Democrats 13 house seats. Reparations which only 18% support, bring that up could hurt the dems in the midterms. Now I haven't heard about the national park thing except from jgw, but I can guarantee you a majority of Americans would be opposed to that.

If one wants to accomplish much in 2023/24, that means retaining both chambers of congress. Obama got his ACA, but at what cost? His last six years were basically lame duck years limited to EO's. Putting off the ACA for a year or two, what more could Obama have accomplished if he retained the House? The ACA was an albatross around the Democrats neck all though the Obama years. It took Trump to make the ACA popular, without Trump, the ACA probably would still be unpopular. You can look below to see how unpopular the ACA was during Obama.

Of course I look at these things more through a political strategist eyes than partisan eyes. My goal is to win elections, so my advice is along the lines of not doing anything stupid that would cost you the next election.

Pushing through a reparation bill could cost you the next election, turning of national parks to the indians, could cost you the next election. If you don'[t get ride of the word Defund, change it to Reform or something akin to that, if you don't, it could cost you the next election.

You, the democrats got the Republicans back on their heels with Trump and a civil war going on. Why in the world would you grab their hand and straighten them up by bringing things, legislation up that a majority of Americans are against? Is this a death wish?

My advice which no one takes, don't do anything stupid like you did in 1994 and 2010 if you want to retain control of congress. But then again, if you think these things are so important that losing control of congress is worth it, by all means, have at it.

Personally, I'd like to see what Biden can do with four years, but that will mean taking into consideration of the will and wants of a majority of Americans and not to pass anything that would go against that will and want. It means listening to America as a whole and not just one's base or even a portion of one's base.
Posted By: Greger Re: Social Media - 05/20/21 12:50 AM
Who in the world is thinking of pushing through a reparations bill?

Nobody, I think.

Remember when you couldn't show me any democrats shrieking support for defunding the police?

None of them are pushing for reparations or giving parklands back to their former owners.

Whenever you hear crazy stuff like this on teevee, just ask would Manchin vote. Because that is exactly how radical Democrats are going to be.
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/20/21 01:04 PM
I really have to find a way to be less long winded.

Democrats Push For Reparations Bill, Testing White House Support

‘A cry for an acknowledgement:’ U.S. House Democrats urge reparations bill

Basically, none of the above named names, but reparations is being pushed hard by the squad. They do get a lot of face time on the news where someone like Manchin gets none.

I think when it comes to face time, the spot light, the weirder, the loudest and the most outspoken get the headlines and shown on the news.

Politics is a war of propaganda, of trying to influence the voter, their perspectives, most of the time truth and facts need not apply. I have no doubt that some GOP congressional candidates for 2022 will be playing TV ads of Omar, AOC etc. hollering for reparations in certain swing districts that have yet to be drawn.

Now look at those headlines, "Democrats Push For Reparations Bill, Testing White House Support," and ‘A cry for an acknowledgement:’ U.S. House Democrats urge reparations bill."

Most independents, swing voters won't read the articles, just the headlines. In their minds, the headline says it all. Democrats push or urge reparations...

So it easy to see how those who pay very little attention to politics if any until election time would naturally assume democrats, all democrats want reparations. Right, wrong or indifferent, that's how these things work.

Perhaps the bottom line is to figure out how many of these swing voters vote based on just some tid bit in the news, some headline or some elected official hollering their head off about some subject or issue. Whereas Republicans and Democrats are way over represented among those who actually vote vs. total party affiliation of the nation as a whole. Independents are way under represented. Which makes sense as independents have no horse in the race, the horses belong to republicans and democrats.

Perhaps the bottom line here is independents, swing voter make up between 25-30% of those who do vote, but 40% of the electorate as a whole. Republicans and Democrats make up roughly 55% of the total electorate, but 70-75% of those who actually vote.
Posted By: Greger Re: Social Media - 05/20/21 03:31 PM
Now look at those headlines

I look at a lot of headlines. "The Democrats" don't write the headlines. The press does. A press that's looking to stir up crap and get people to click on sh*t. It's all about the money and understanding what gets peple stirred up.

From your link...

Congressional Democrats renewed their push for a federal study of racial reparations at a committee hearing Wednesday, the latest test of whether President Joe Biden would support compensation to Black Americans for centuries of slavery and systemic racism in the U.S.

Not a push for reparations...a push for a study on reparations. But why don't we blow it completely out of proportion and say that the Dems want to start cutting checks to Black folks tomorrow!

I understand that everything has to be explained at a third grade level to most voters who have no more understanding of politics than your average toddler. I don't really concern myself with these idiots.

If they believe that Republicans best understand their desires and needs then by all means let them vote their little hearts out. Republicans invariably fail at federal governance and lose in the end. My little town is run very very well by republicans. My county government is entirely republican and they do a fine job. I'm happy with my state government under Ron DeSantis leadership. Based on his performance as governor I would be hard put to vote against him for any reason other than partisan ones.

Pero, you're a swing voter so I assume you really don't have any problems with Republicans. I have a personal vendetta against The Party...

I blame them for the loss of my business, my fortune, my health, and finally my home.

Prior to all that I was a swing voter like yourself and really saw little difference between the parties or their candidates.

But...what works at the state and local levels comes apart at the seams when it tries to become a central government and world power.

Corruption mostly. Good old boy networks are always run by the richest among them...everybody else bends the rules for them...
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/20/21 05:27 PM
I have problems with both major parties, so hence I am a swing voter. Now I do study independents, other swing voters in trying to figure out how they'll vote in any particular election. Whether their reasons are sound, fantasy or whatever doesn't matter, it's how they end up voting that does. Like it or not, it's these folks that pay very little to almost no attention to politics that decide most elections. Knowing how independents, swing voters are leaning helps in my election forecasts. But knowing that doesn't effect how I vote.

I think if I were a strategist for either party with a goal of winning elections, I'd be paying close attention to swing voters and trying to attract them to vote for my party's candidates. If Gallup has party affiliation right, the Democrats own a 31-26 advantage over Republicans. Both are a long way away from the magic 50% plus one. It seems to me both major parties are always trying to peeve these swing voters off. Neither party is interested in trying to convince them to vote for their party's candidates. It's like they don't exist for the two major parties. So they get ignored.

Perhaps ignoring them and concentrating on one's party base to make the base happy is why there is a very long history of the party out of power gaining seats in both chambers during the midterm elections. sometimes huge numbers of seats which changes control of congress.

I have no problem with your vendetta against the GOP. That's totally up to you. Now I think both major parties have strategist, that are smart enough to gauge the mood of the country and promote policies that are in the majority and put on hold policies that aren't. But neither party does that.

All it would take to put this reparation thing to rest is for Biden to come out and state, no reparations. Not to form a committee. Independents would buy that. Defund the police, once again come out and say no to defunding the police, but making the police more responsible to their local community with some much needed reforms, once again independents would buy that. Especially coming from Biden. To dance around these issues, saying nothing lets those issues fester, lets independents think Democrats are for defunding and doing away with the police along with making reparations.Whether or not they are for or against in reality becomes irrelevant. As the notion, the idea is there.

I have always said, Trump is a republican party problem. Now if the Democratic Party wants to say nothing and let independents believe they're all in favor of defunding and reparations, that is the democratic party's problem.
Posted By: Greger Re: Social Media - 05/21/21 02:51 PM
Like it or not, it's these folks that pay very little to almost no attention to politics that decide most elections.

Yep...the sheep. They move whichever way the headlines push them with no real thought for for their futures, no understanding of government, whatever triggers them a week or so before the election is what determines the outcome.

Kinda sad aint it.

And most see their headlines on social media...who's algorithm already knows their trigger and when best to pull it.
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/21/21 03:04 PM
What's interesting is there is always a big push to get those sheep to vote more and more. To get those who aren't a bit interested in politics, who's in control of government, probably couldn't tell you who their senators, representative, governors are. Just know who's the president is, but are pushed to get out and vote. There's an old saying that says that democrats benefit from a large turnout. That isn't always the case. It all depends on who these sheep are angry at. These sheep gave congress to the GOP in 1994 and 2010. They gave congress to the Democrats in 2006 and 2018. These sheep helped elect Biden, they helped elect Trump. Definitely helped elect Obama and G.W. Bush along with Bill Clinton.

Now here's something up your line. I'd like to know your thoughts.

Trump Acquitter Marco Rubio Likely To Face Trump Prosecutor Val Demings In Senate Race

I haven't added Florida to my list of at risk seats yet. Just NH, GA, NC, PA, WI. But I'm going to keep a good eye on Florida.
Posted By: jgw Re: Social Media - 05/21/21 05:01 PM
I suspect that Rubio keep his job. Things are good in Florida so the Trumpists are likely to win. Its a long time till elections and all sorts of things can change all of that. I continue to think that, eventually folks will figure out that Trump is a self serving loser and virtually anything he comes into contact with tends to rot (a book just came out which claims that Trump has been able to corrupt the entire secret service!). Trump rot includes people, business, etc (just about everything).

My problem is that the true believers keep on thanking Trump for all the wonderful things he has done for them. I have no idea what they are talking about. I do know that Dems might have a chance - if they don't screw it up.
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/21/21 08:26 PM
Okay, you got me thinking and I found this.

Poll shows support, but vulnerability for Marco Rubio

So Florida is going on my watch list. Florida may be a state if this comes down to Trump vs. anti Trump campaign, Rubio may win since Florida did go to Trump. So I checked the PVI for Florida, the partisan voter index, it was a plus 3 Republican. Which means the race is competitive, but at this time Rubio has a slight advantage. Or one can say Florida leans Republicans. That's a far cry from likely Republican. Anything can happen as you stated.
Posted By: Greger Re: Social Media - 05/21/21 11:35 PM
Sheep is kind of an ugly word for them but the shoe fits. I prefer to think of them as couch sitters. There is an enormous pool of them to draw from and whomever can get the most of them off the couch will win the election. America was sick of Trump so they gave him the boot.

Couch sitters might or might not be independents.

They just make up the mass of the non voting public.

Democrats are currently pushing for a Bipartisan Jan 6 investigation.

Republicans are trying to sweep it under the rug. We ALL watched it on teevee and those were not tourists.

Who is gonna look bad to the most people? Republicans, I think. The strategy(as I see it) is to make the Republicans look like the bad guys

Not difficult reaally...

Which brings us to the Rubio question...Has Florida had enough of Marco Rubio? Will enough couch sitting, democratic leaning, voters go to the polls to prevent the second coming of Trump by eliminating his minions?

A Black lady....a clever ploy and it could work. But just offhand I'd say Rubio by a nose. Rubio is a South Florida politician and it's really strange down there. Cubans generally vote Republican but the Black and Puerto Rican vote might overpower that...but Democrats are famous for getting complacent and sitting on the couch at midterms...yeah...Rubio by a nose, take it to the bank.
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/22/21 12:25 AM
Coach potatoes, yeah. Yes, Democrats are famous for sitting out midterms. But that again is kind of a misnomer if that's the right word. Usually whenever a candidate wins the presidency that was held by the other party, the new president's party seems to be less energetic to get out and vote. The incentive was there to get rid of the president of the other party, that mission was accomplished. So the midterms doesn't provide the incentive that the presidential election did.

sure, both major parties have coach potatoes, but independents make up the majority of them. Independents made up 38% of the electorate in 2020, but only 26% of those who actually voted. Democrats made up 31%, but 37% of those who voted vs. republicans which made up 30% and 35% of those who voted. Understandable that independents wouldn't bother, they don't have a horse in the race. Republicans and democrats do, they own the horses. Independents are just fans, some avid, some fair weather, some who just plain don't like politics or don't care. The Democrats which had a plus 1 party advantage, had a plus 2 among those who voted.

2018 was another good turnout for the Democrats, from a plus 3 in party affiliation to a plus 6 among those who actually voted. The dislike of Trump was probably the main reason along with 2018 being the midterm for Republicans who accomplished their mission of replacing Obama with a Republican.

The out of power party usually has more incentive to vote in the midterms than the party that hold power and or the presidency.

Rubio, incumbent, yes he has to be a slight favorite. Florida is interesting as it went for Trump twice, for Obama twice, for G.W. Bush twice, Bill Clinton in 1996 and G.H.W. Bush in 1992. No pattern there. Until recently, Florida had a history of having a senator from each party. So perhaps, Florida could go back to having a senator from each party.
Posted By: jgw Re: Social Media - 05/22/21 04:44 PM
The problem with the Dems is that they never watch their mouths and that costs them bigtime. They simply refuse to learn from their mistakes and blame it on something else. When was the last time you heard a Democrat actually admit, right out loud, that they screwed up?

Much of the Florida vote are the retired and that means old folks. They tend to be hidebound and rarely change their ways. Trump, for instance, has had one of his little get-togethers right in the middle of that huge community of retired and they all like to attend those events as its entertainment as well as politics and one of the few things Trump is really good at is entertainment. They are also sensitive to words like "socialist", etc. In northern Florida its an entirely different game to be played. I remember driving through northern Florida. Before we did we were told to be very careful because that was serious red-neck territory. That was a long time ago so maybe things have changed.

So, the Dems have a chance and the question is pretty simple - can they watch their mouths? I think its that simple.
Posted By: Greger Re: Social Media - 05/22/21 05:17 PM
Us socialists don't really care if the Democrats hate that word. They can eat sh*t and die twice as far as I'm concerned.

I don't rightly care if the hate the Defund the Police slogan either.

And say what you will...reparations would be the right thing to do.

No, the left wing will not keep it's mouth shut to satisfy the neoliberal wing.
Posted By: Greger Re: Social Media - 05/22/21 05:21 PM
Us socialists don't really care if the Democrats hate that word. They can eat sh*t and die twice as far as I'm concerned.

I don't rightly care if they hate the Defund the Police slogan either.

And say what you will...reparations would be the right thing to do.

No, the left wing will not keep it's mouth shut to satisfy the neoliberal wing.
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/22/21 07:05 PM
LOL, it not satisfying the neoliberal wing or even the right wing. It's making it possible to win elections. Lose elections and nothing you want can ever be accomplished. Win elections, at least some can be. I'm constantly surprised that those on either side of the divide can't understand this or won't.
Posted By: Greger Re: Social Media - 05/22/21 08:43 PM
Winning elections is not my first consideration.

I'm out to change the world. To make it a better place.

I caucus with the Democrats, but I am no Democrat and I don't care if they win or lose. But they are the defacto "socialist" party in our two party system and with some work and maybe a little therapy the Democrats will eventually come out of the closet and admit they are socialists.

The more we use the word socialist and demand social justice and equality the more people will forget the cold war and begin to believe that they deserve social justice and equality. Don't look at Soviet Russia or Venezuela as examples, Look at Switzerland and Sweden and a dozen more where the government serves the people and not multinational corporations.

Socialism is the future or else there is no future. One percent of the American population owns about 90% of the nation's wealth. We blew through late stage capitalism in the 90s...what we're seeing now is end stage capitalism.

The part where we make the planet unlivable for anything but rats and cockroaches.
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/22/21 11:42 PM
All I can say is good luck. I really don't think much change is possible if the other party is in charge, winning elections. Now I'm different, I tend to look at the long haul. Get what is possible today, put what isn't on hold until it become possible at sometime in the future.

The old saying that politics is the art of the possible comes to mind. Winning elections, a Biden win gives you a chance to move forward, perhaps little steps forward, but forward nonetheless. A Biden loss, a Trump win would give you no chance at all, perhaps even moving backwards a few steps. No chance for advancement.

Yes, rats and cockroaches will still be here long after humans ceased to exist.
Posted By: Greger Re: Social Media - 05/23/21 04:17 PM
All I can say is good luck. I really don't think much change is possible if the other party is in charge, winning elections.

Since neither party is really acceptable, nor willing to make any changes, then "the other party" is always in charge.

Democrats are masters at incrementalism...small steps forward without actually changing anything. They give lip service to all things progressive but are as hidebound as Republicans when it comes to actual change.

As far as my personal goals, the Trump victory in 2016 was a major win. No politician has done so much damage the the Republican Party in my lifetime. Before him was George Bush...the previous worst president in history. Reagan and Nixon were pretty bad too.

My plan is going swimmingly! I will not live to see it all come together but the US will eventually embrace a more socialist approach. All this headbanging between the parties is mostly entertainment, real changes are taking place at the societal level, at the cultural level. They won't really begin to show up in the polls yet but I expect certain anomalies to occur that you will probably spot over the next few years. I hope we both live long enough to see this partisan gridlock improve.
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/23/21 04:56 PM
That's why I'm a swing voter. I hate partisan gridlock, I hate straight party line voting. I hate seeing our elected leaders always putting their party way above the nation. I want to see legislation, proposals brought forth for our elected officials to base their votes on the merits of each. Not to automatically oppose anything and everything the other party does or proposes.

I want to see our elected officials putting America first, not their political party. To govern over the nation as America as a whole and not just for their party's base. Perhaps I'm a dreamer, perhaps I live in a fantasy world.

Perhaps I'm kind of a majoritarian. if a majority of Americans want us to move left, I'm fine with that. If they want us to move right, I'm also fine with that. What I want is government that governs and moves with the wishes and wants of the majority of Americans. If that means moving toward socialism, so be it.

I want our elected leaders to realize this country is made up of Republicans, Democrats, independents and a bunch of folks who just don't give an owl's hoot about politics. That this country isn't made up of just one party's base.

As long as we have party firsters in charge of both major parties, partisan gridlock is here to stay. Compromise should mean compromise, not giving the other party 100% of what they want and you get nothing.

I'm about as far away from being an ideologue as one can be and still be a political junkie. I think Georgia's two senators should vote the way most Georgian's want and wish them to, the same for my representative, the way the people in his district would like him too. The same for my state representatives and senators, country commissioners etc. Not voting the way one's party dictates.

Our elected leaders should represent the people who elected them, not their party. But I always been kind of anti party, a loner, one who moves by the beat of his own drum. Voting for who I'm comfortable with and against those I'm not.
Posted By: jgw Re: Social Media - 05/23/21 07:26 PM
Reparations, if publicly claimed, by the Dems, will lose them election. It is interesting, however. The first slave owner, in the United States was a black man. After the civil war those, now ex-slaves, were given an option to return to Africa. Many did. We dumped them in Liberia. What was interesting is that they proceded to enslave the Liberians in the American way. So, are we also going to force today's Liberians to pay reparations to those descendants of those enslaved?

I am not for giving reparations to folks because of how they were treated over 100 years ago. I am not denying, however, that they have also been screwed over in modern times and that is waaay different. They are, basically, screwed over right now! Now, THAT is something that needs to be righted! There are signs that might be happening right now. Its also interesting that those standing in the way are the Republicans. Somebody should also ask why there are blacks that support Republicans who are working against their own best interest.

One of the terrifying things, about American voters, is that they often don't have the capacity to act in their own best interest (white, black, elderly, whatever). Trump, for instance, went after Social Security and Medicare! There was NO secret and he said it right out loud. From what I see of Trump rallies a good number of supporters rely on those two to live yet they support somebody who wants to get rid of them!

I guess its just one of them things that will remain a social mystery of note.
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/23/21 08:15 PM
A lot depends on the party they identify with. Regardless of race, age, sex etc. those 55-60% who associate or affiliate with the two major parties will vote for their party's candidates roughly 92%. The R and or the D over ride the issues and perhaps leave those voting against their own interests. At least that is what history shows.

Then you have the rest, 40% or so, up and down, give and take, independents who pay very little to or any attention to politics except when an election nears. This has always made me wonder just how many Americans actually vote issues? There's no hard figures on that. How many just adopt the stance on the issues of the party they belong to at the time, if they switch parties, they switch their stances.

This doesn't give you an explanation as to why, just how belonging to one or the other party always seems to determine their vote way before hand regardless of the issues and stances.

Yes, in my opinion reparations is a losing issue. As is the slogan Defund the police whether or not that is what is meant by those who holler it at the top of their lungs. Only 18% of all Americans support reparations, 18% support defunding the police. Myself, I'm against it, not 7 or 8 generations after the fact. Now if we were giving reparations to those who had been slaves or the first generation, I'd be all in favor. Not 156 years after the fact. Only 30% of democrats support reparations while 49% of blacks do, 10% of whites.

What's interesting about the slogan, defund the police, just 18% support that. But 43% support taking funds away from the police and redirecting those funds to social services. Now that not what the slogan says, keeping mute on that by the democrats could very well hurt them come election time as it hurt them in the house elections in 2020. Most Americans like and trust their local police and don't want them abolished as the slogan defund the police implies leaving Americans to take Defund the Police as meaning exactly what it says.

Perhaps we should take slavery into the context of the times it was prevalent. Prior to 1800 slavery was legal in at least 80% of the countries in the world in some form. By 1865 that percentage had dropped to a bit over half of all countries in the world.What caught my eye is Arab and African countries didn't start to abolish slavery until after 1900 for the most part. It wasn't until 2003 that Niger made slavery a crime, Mauritania in 2007 becoming the last two countries in the world to finely end slavery.
Posted By: jgw Re: Social Media - 05/24/21 06:02 PM
First , the Saudis freed their slaves in 1962! Slavery, in the middle east, continues pretty much everywhere. I am told that India too has slavery which they deny loudly. Every now and then an Indian comes to New York for the United Nations and gets caught with a slave or two too. In other words, slavery is alive and well!

I have always thought that independents pay more attention to politics than those who claim a party but are not active in said party. I have nothing to base that on but it makes a kind of sense to me. I also know a lot of folks who claim a party and have absolutely no idea where they stand on anything. Republicans are an excellent example of that one. Some are 'Christians" who belong to Christ's Party and a vast variety of conservatives who are, basically, politically ignorant. The Republican party itself has no set of planks and nobody really knows, from one day to the next what it all means.

The Dems seem to be a party with members who are not Republican and, if they are not involved with the party itself, just vote Democratic because they are not Republicans.

I know, my thoughts are simplistic but that's what I see. People who are not party members seem to me to be more aware than party claiments. I have also seen a lot of numbers that claim that there are more independents than party members. I have no idea if that's true or not but that would make sense to me.
Posted By: Greger Re: Social Media - 05/24/21 07:20 PM
You'll likely see the number of independents continuing to rise as partisan squabbles interfere with government operation and as voters tire of the shenanigans.
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/25/21 12:02 AM
JGW, you got me thinking, is there a way to find out if independents pay more attention to politics in general than do the party faithful? Perhaps, a shot in the dark would be to compare the don't know/no opinion column of independents to those who identify with the political parties.. This is just the don't know/no opinion column. This isn't the favorable/unfavorable columns, just the Don't know/no opinion.

Biden D 4, R 4, I 8
Trump D 3, R 4, I 6

Everyone should know who the above are. Now to continue with congressional leaders.

Pelosi D 11, R 7 I 19
McCarthy D 24, R 27, I 38
McConnell D 16, R 17, I 18
Schumer D 21, R 16 I 31

Interesting that those who stay in the news, who have the most face time, Pelosi and McConnell have way fewer Don't know/no opinions than McCarthy and Schumer. Being they get little face time, chances are independents don't know who these later two are.

I'm not sure what the above proves, if it proves anything.
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/25/21 12:15 AM
The trend toward independents rising is there, from 30% in 2006 up to 41% today. Most Americans want the two major parties to work together and compromise.

I wonder if the rise in independent has something to do with public trust in government? This is prior to Biden, during Trump. But there seems to be a correlation.
Posted By: jgw Re: Social Media - 05/25/21 05:08 PM
Which is why its been going on for a long time. Just happens more during times of unrest and political fighting.
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/25/21 07:00 PM
What I noticed, trust in government has so much to do with who is president. During Bill Clinton Democrats trust of government was in the 60's, Republicans dropped into the 40's. During G.W. Bush, democratic trust dropped from the 60's down into the 30's while Republican trust stayed around 80%. Enter Obama, Democratic trust in government rose as high as 74% while Republicans dropped into the 30's. Along comes Trump, Democrats drop down into the 20's, Republicans climb to as high as 71% while most of the time being in the 60's.

Independents has been on a steady decline regardless of who was/is president. From 68% in 2001 down to 28% in 2020. Gallup has no recent figures during Biden. Pew Research pretty much mirrors Gallup, but doesn't do independents. Pew however does carry it from 1 Dec 1958 through 11 Apr 2021.

According to Pew, as of 11 only 24% of all Americans trust their government to who what's right most or all of the time.

It's an interesting graph, public trust in the 70's until 1964 than a decline to 26% in 1980, a slight rebound in Trust during Reagan and Bush I, then another decline during Bill Clinton's first term, then starting to rebound during his second and Bush II's first term/ Then another decline to around 24% where it's pretty much remained within a point or two either way from Bush II right to Biden on 11 Apr 2021.

Trust in government is always higher for the party that holds the presidency and lower for the party which doesn't. It's been that way ever since 1 Dec 1958 through today.
Posted By: jgw Re: Social Media - 05/26/21 06:10 PM
I am not sure that Independent decline has been a result of Trump hate which drove some independents into the Democratic party to fight Trump. Perhaps the same happened to fight the Democrats as well.

On reflection I may be right or I may not be but its probable, I think. It kinda folks taking sides. The problem, I suspect, is defining the sides as, I think, anything one side says about the other just stirs the pot and nothing really changes.

I base this on absolutely nothing and suspect your probably have more fact than I and admit that I may be completely wrong. It does seem, now, that the number of independents is growing, however.
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/26/21 08:50 PM
There's no doubt about the number of independents growing, from 30% in 2006 up to 41% today. The question I have about the rise, have those who left both major parties changed their voting habits or have they kept them only under a new name?

We've had some wild swings in how independents vote in the past, 2006 they went Democratic by 18 points only to go Republican by 19 points in 2010. That's a swing of 37 points in 4 years. Now with independents grown the swing was Trump by 4 in 2016, Biden by 13 in 2020, a swing of 17 points in 4 years.

Too small a sample to say anything for sure. It's very possible that those who left the GOP still are voting for Republicans as are those who left the Democratic Party still voting Democratic. Only now they call themselves independents. History doesn't help me on this.

For the time being, I'm going to assume for the time being that those who left both major parties are continuing to vote for the party they left candidates. Voting habits. But you know what they say about assuming and what that can make you.
Posted By: jgw Re: Social Media - 05/27/21 05:40 PM
I think independents are exactly what the name implies - Independent! They might have druthers but they are not, I think, dedicated to one party or the other. Perhaps they are voting for the candidate and screw the party? I really have no idea and, I suspect, neither does anybody else.

I consider myself, for instance, an independent. I also tend toward the left a bit but am not really dedicated to that direction when the candidate on that side is utterly wrong (for me). Sometimes I might even vote for nobody in a given position if they are both rotters.

I have, incidentally, never voted in an elections wherein you are forced to vote for a given party if you are signed up in that party but I think there are instances where that actually happens. I am in Washington state and we get to vote for whoever we want. We also decide who gets to run in the run-off by determining who the two top vote getters in the primary were. This sometimes means that both candidates, in the runoff, might actually be running in the same election! (this one has amused more often than not)
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/27/21 06:13 PM
I always preferred the name swing voter to independent. Mainly because they can swing back and forth, from one party to the other and yes, toward third parties if both major party candidate disgust them. 12% of independents did vote third party in 2016 which was 9 million voters. I was one of them. No lesser of two evils, no least worst candidate among the two major parties, no voting for the candidate I want the least to lose, not win, but least to lose. I voted against both.

Perhaps non-affiliated voter rather than independent. I do believe independents vote the candidates much more than the party. History has shown that 92% of the time Republicans and democrats vote for their party's candidates regardless of who they are. I use to call them mindless robots, but further thinking, it probably is more of an ideological grouping of more or less like minded folks. I also said that voting based on just the R and or the D means on average you're voting for the best candidate half the time and the worst candidate half the time.

I also think independents are much more influenced by the personality and charisma of the candidates. A beauty or popularity contest more or less. They went for Reagan twice by huge margins, Reagan probably the most charismatic candidate since JFK. They went for Bill Clinton twice, another charismatic candidate over the less charismatic G.H.W. Bush and Dole. For Obama who was also charismatic.

Then there was G.W. Bush, not charismatic in my book, but a down home southern, country boy more or less. He won independents twice, over two statues, Gore and Kerry. Another down home country boy, Jimmy Carter defeated a stoic Ford in 1976, only to lose to Mr. Charismatic, Mr. Ronald Reagan in 1980.

For me, Trump and Hillary Clinton were about as uncharismatic as it gets. I phrase it, Rude, obnoxious vs. aloof, elitist, know it all. Rude, Obnoxious eek out a 4 point win among independents with as I stated before 12% voting against both candidates. 2020, rude, obnoxious lost to the bland, old, uninspiring Biden by 13 points which a lot. It was the disliked of and being against Trump than I would say being for Biden. But Biden was a safe candidate, a moderate democrat, nothing there to get any independent extremely upset or perhaps angry.

My take from all of this, want to win the independent vote, choose a charismatic candidate. I would say some vote the issues, but most vote the candidates based on their perceptions of the candidates.
Posted By: jgw Re: Social Media - 05/28/21 06:20 PM
I think you missed one group. Those are those who want desperately to win and vote the ticket because they literally hate the opposition. When that happens I tend to believe that nobody wins. Right now there are a lot of voters that fall into that camp. Nothing counts except to win and they are at war!

Right now, I fear, there is a lot of that going around - on BOTH sides! Sanity, and common sense, have taken flight and we are all going to pay the price down the road.
Posted By: Greger Re: Social Media - 05/28/21 06:38 PM
If you want charisma look to Hollywood. Trump and Reagan were stars before they were politicians.

Maybe we could hire George Clooney to run. There's at least some substance there, unlike the other two.

Mattt Gaetz has announced his intention to run in 2024, plenty of charisma there...he charmed the pants right off some children. Will independents scramble to vote for him?

Do independents vote for looks? AOC is, I think, without a doubt the prettiest face in DC and definitely the best knockers. Is that what they're looking for?

Democrats will have Biden or Harris or both up for reelection. There isn't going to be a lot of choosing on the part of the Democrats and likely no primary to speak of running up to 2024.

Republicans will have Trump or DeSantis. You pick the most charismatic of that batch for the win?
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/28/21 07:10 PM
Ah, the anti vote. 24% of all those who voted in 2020 voted against the other party's candidate. So the anti vote made up almost a quarter of all who voted in 2020. They didn't vote for any candidate, just against one. Of those 24% voting against a candidate, 68% voted against Trump, 30% against Biden. You had approximately 160 million people vote in 2020, which means 38.4 million voted against a candidate and not for a candidate. This means Biden received 26.1 million votes that were against trump, but not necessarily for Biden. Trump received 11.5 million votes that were against Biden, but not actually for Trump.

That is if my math is correct. You take away the anti voters, count only those who voted for a candidate, not against, you'd have Trump winning the for a candidate vote 62.7 million to 55.2 million who voted for Biden.

What this shows is the anti vote helped Biden hugely. It also shows how disliked Trump was. So be thankful for the anti vote.

As for being charismatic, I consider Reagan as being very charismatic, Trump no. But then again it may depend on how one defines charisma. The definition, exercising a compelling charm which inspires devotion in others. I see a lot of charm in Reagan, Bill Clinton and Obama, none in Trump. None in Hillary, Kerry, Gore, Dole for that matter.

We had elections where neither major party candidates were charismatic. Bush I vs. Dukakis, Nixon vs. Humphrey are two. Carter vs. Ford, Carter wan't charimatic, but he had that down home country boy image about him, same with Bush II. That made them in my opinion more likable to the voter than the stoic Ford or the statues of Gore and Kerry. But that is just my opinion.

Biden or Harris vs. Trump, easy. Biden and or Harris, Trump is the most disliked presidential candidate in our history or since Gallup and Pew Research began keeping track of this back in 1956. DeSantis, I don't know much about him and never seen him on TV. You'd know more about his charisma than I. I'd say 2024 all depends on what happens between today and Nov 2024. If inflation continues to rise, that gives the GOP an advantage if they stay away from Trump. Then there are any unforeseen major events and or happenings that always seem to occur.

Here's the major party presidential candidates favor/unfavorable ratings since 1956.

Highest to lowest favorable/unfavorable ratings of each major party presidential candidate.
1956 Eisenhower 84/12%
1964 LBJ 81/13%
1976 Carter 81/16%
1960 JFK 80/14%
1960 Nixon 79/16%
1968 Nixon 79/22%
1976 Ford 79/20%
1972 Nixon 76/21%
1968 Humphrey 72/28%
1984 Reagan 70/30%
1980 Carter 68/32%
1984 Mondale 66/34%
1980 Reagan 64/31%
1992 Bill Clinton 64/33%
2008 Obama 62/35%
2012 Obama 62/37%
1956 Stevenson 61/31%
2004 G.W. Bush 61/39%
2008 McCain 60/35%
1992 G.H.W. Bush 59/40%
2000 G.W. Bush 58/38%
2004 Kerry 57/40%
1996 Bill Clinton 56/42%
1988 G.H.W. Bush 56/39%
2000 Gore 55/43%
2012 Romney 55/43%
1972 McGovern 55/41%
1996 Dole 54/45%
1988 Dukakis 53/42%
2020 Biden 52/46%
1964 Goldwater 43/47%
2020 Trump 43/56%
2016 Hillary Clinton 38/56%
2016 Donald Trump 36/60%
Posted By: Greger Re: Social Media - 05/28/21 09:20 PM
Originally Posted by jgw
I think you missed one group. Those are those who want desperately to win and vote the ticket because they literally hate the opposition. When that happens I tend to believe that nobody wins. Right now there are a lot of voters that fall into that camp. Nothing counts except to win and they are at war!

Right now, I fear, there is a lot of that going around - on BOTH sides! Sanity, and common sense, have taken flight and we are all going to pay the price down the road.

Remind me of a time when sanity and common sense were the overarching principles of government?

Both sides? I've got no love for Democrats but only one side has gone batshite crazy. The other is trying to move forward some much needed legislation.
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/28/21 11:59 PM
I spent a couple of hours trying to research the anti vote. CNN exit polls answered 2020, 24% anti vote, 2016, 25% anti vote. Gallup answered 2012 with 11% anti voters. Then I hit a dead wall as none of the previous exit polls asked that question. I would assume 11% give or take is/was basically the norm going back. But you know what they say about assumptions.

I think common sense left the political arena in the 1990's or early 2000's. Lott and Daschle were replaced by McConnell and Reid which I classify as party firsters, where each would automatically oppose anything from the other party. I think the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the introduction of the Hastert rule was the beginning of the lack of common sense. Others may see things differently, but it was with the take over of the two parties by McConnell and Reid that cooperation between them stopped, straight party line voting began in earnest. But this is just me.

I think Biden, Manchin, etc are trying to bring back cooperation and common sense, but I don't think they'll be successful as long as McConnell remains.
Posted By: jgw Re: Social Media - 05/29/21 05:02 PM
Charismatic - exercising a compelling charm which inspires devotion in others.

You seem to think everybody is charismatic - I don't, Last night I watched Bill Maher tear into the thought of even electing an actor and, I think, he did a pretty good job. You can probably find in under "real time with bill maher" on you tube.

Anyway, there are a lot of people that confuse tv land, and movie land, with reality. They say that there were a lot of people who wanted to take a trip to a tv land perfect black country and some got angry when they were told it wasn't real. These people are, I suspect, the same people who thought that trump's show was real too, even though it wasn't and he has been an incredible loser his entire life. His show was a success because the TV folks ran the show! There are a lot of people who don't even think he is really rich. The simple fact of his known debt is reality and that debt is HUGE!

As an aside it seems that they are now going to go after Trump for being not only criminal but a practicing gangster! One wonders how that is going to work out.

Anyway, I think that here are more people than you think who are quite aware of what is real and what is not. Those who do not are simply more vocal in their constant efforts to find them that agree with them due to their loneliness.

Sorrry, I just don't believe them, or your belief that they are some kind of majority. They are just a sad group of idiots who reality will eventually set right.

Incidentally, Mattt Gaetz is one of the least appealing of the entire group and only appeals to them that are desparate to hear about THEIR reality.
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/30/21 01:10 PM
I should be more specific. When I talk about folks voting for the more charismatic candidate, I'm referring to those who aren't affiliate with any party, the less to non-partisans, swing voters, independents. Those who don't pay much if any attention to the daily grind of politics coming out of Washington. Only when an election nears do their interest peak.

Let's face it, Republicans and democrats, the party faithful would vote for a 20 ton rock if that was their candidate. Well, at least 92% of them based on historical average. Now there's a difference in the type of charisma, TV and Movie stars have their own type, but I don't think would appeal to this group of swing voters, the non-affiliated when it comes to elected office.

In other words, a political candidate exhibiting charisma in his field is completely different from a sports star, TV personality etc. Charisma in their's. There has to be a certain political savvyness in any candidate along with being charismatic for it to work. It has to in my opinion help a candidate likableness. Being charismatic certainly helped Reagan, Bill Clinton and Obama. It help JFK in 1960, I don't think JFK would have ever beat Nixon then if it wasn't for his charisma, his personality.

Trump may have had all the charisma in the world in the TV reality show field. But he had none when it came to politics. He was that 20 ton rock only being love and adored by those in his party. Not independents, the non-affiliated, swing voters, they disliked him.
Posted By: jgw Re: Social Media - 05/30/21 06:50 PM
Trump is a different sort of thing. He had a successful TV show for something like 11/13 years! The people who watched him were unable to understand that they were watching something happening in TV Land and wasn't real and there were MILLIONS OF THEM! All they really understood was that he was incredibly rich and incredibly clever and he wanted to 'help' them to be as successful as he was. He got to present himself once a week for all those years! On top of that TV folks loved him. If they could get him on their network they were assured of watchers which, in turn continued the Trump myth - because he made money for them! They even admitted that! In other words Trump was a dream that gifted us with his reality. It thrilled his fans and the TV folk.

I am talking about a man that has a debt of something like 4 billion dollars, A man who has failed at just about everything but the business daddy made and, wait for it, POLITICS! Does it surprise anybody that a really good gaslighting liar did well in POLITICS? Those responsible were TV folk but they don't accept that. They blame it on their audiences.

I am writing this because this is really not about politics - its about Trump and the TV industry. The subject of this topic is supposed to be 'Social Media'. I would submit that TV itself is a 'Social Media' and those taking part in this particular media is the TV audience!

My suggestion to any of you who watch TV remember that they are actually watching TV Land which is NOT reality. Next time you are watching a TV show, and somebody in the room points out something wrong about something they are watching because it doesn't jibe with their reality somebody else should point out that they are watching TV Land! ANYTHING can happen in TV Land and its NOT REAL! I watch a lot of TV and know its not real! There are, however, many who think it is real. We have problems, perhaps the real way to fix the problems is to ban TV! People are already thinking of doing something about the 'other Social Media' perhaps the whole of TV needs a few rules as well. How about starting with putting up an announcement, at the beginning of every show and movie which says; "THIS IS NOT REAL!"
Posted By: Greger Re: Social Media - 05/31/21 02:41 AM
at least 92% of them based on historical average.

So that tells me that 8% of them are swing voters. Pretty good size number where election results are concerned and well above the margin of error.,,,
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/31/21 12:20 PM
It's definitions and columns that folks are grouped in. When asked which party to you associate, identify or affiliated yourself with, Democrat, Republican, independent, other. that determines which column one falls into. Then the second question, who did you vote for. So it comes out on average 92% of those who say they're Republicans and Democrats vote for their candidate. Sometimes more and sometimes less. Only 89% of self identified voted for Hillary while 95% voted for Biden. Swing voters have their own column. By contrast 88% of republicans voted for Trump in 2016, 94% for Trump in 2020.

You're absolutely correct, but that 8% isn't identified as swing voters, just party faithful who didn't vote for their party's candidates. Semantics, possible and probably so. Now these are presidential election figures. There's also nothing saying that the 5% of Democrats who didn't vote for Biden, didn't vote Democratic down ballot. We don't know as the exit polls, didn't break it down that far.

Numbers are interesting, they don't provide all the answers, but probably do for most or a good majority of the answers.
Posted By: Greger Re: Social Media - 05/31/21 04:31 PM
Numbers are interesting, they don't provide all the answers, but probably do for most or a good majority of the answers.

Polls predict the present...they tell you nothing of the future and by the time you read them they are history.

Too much is often extrapolated from too little. But they are useful tools and I appreciate your dedication to keeping up with them because they do provide answers and they document trends.
Posted By: jgw Re: Social Media - 05/31/21 05:20 PM
Sorry, party or independent - it really doesn't matter to any of the Trump folk. They are voting for the myth! The myth has now taken over the entire Republican party! These people simply cannot understand that Trump is a TV myth! They cannot tell the difference. If you were to ask them if they watched him on TV they would, proudly, say that they did. They simply cannot understand what has happened to them! Its actually pretty interesting as well as sad. Over 11 or 13 years they have been converted! They got to actually watch their lord and master in action and they were convinced. The really interesting thing is that his last season was an absolute flop as he had lost the majority of his supporters which was why his show was cancelled. BUT the true believers continued to watch him every chance they got! This was widely reported and the heads of TV proudly stated that he was a real moneymaker for them as he still had admirers left.

Those believing in Trump souls watched him every chance they had! If virtually any religion had a chance to pound their belief into an audience whilst entertaining they would have gotten exactly the same response. Many are doing exactly that, ie. preaching to the believers and asking for donations. Just like Trump does, right now!

I think the trick in dealing with Trump is to first understand that what he does is flat out exactly what the evangelical TV preachers do every week. Trump is, basically following the evangelical TV preacher show plan and he has the worshipers to prove it! Praise be! The only real difference is that he is not teaching virtues so much as pure greed and he is pulling it off! Hell, as far as I can tell he is converting evangelicals to his personal religion!

Its of passing interest that several evangelicals have abandoned their support for somebody I suspect they think is actually the devil! They can't say that because it would cost them believers! They don't do that with their so called competitors and the're not going to do it to Trump. I suspect they don't because its not entertaining and would cost them believers and money to support their private airplanes, big houses, etc.

The way to deal with Trump, I suspect, is to treat him, exactly as anybody would treat the devil!
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 05/31/21 08:36 PM
Thank you Greger. I totally agree, if the election were held today, Democrats would prevail big time. But as you point out, it isn't. This is one reason I refuse to get involved in predicting the house. We don't know if Biden and company will peeve off independents or keep them smiling as they are now. We also can't see what unforeseen events or happenings will take place in the next 18 months or so.

As for jgw, I think you're correct. There are Republicans who can't stand Trump, but know if they cross him, out they go. Self preservation takes hold. They know they'll be defeated in the GOP primary by Trumpers. But as things stand now, those Trumpers most likely will lose in the general election depending on the district and state they running in. Solid or safe GOP districts, it makes no difference who the candidates are. It does in swing or tossup districts and states, even lean districts and states.

Right now I wouldn't want to be in the GOP shoes when it comes to election chances for 2022. But as Greger pointed out, this is today, not Nov 2022. Who know, Biden and company might do something to make independents angry at them ALA 1994 and 2010. Then Trump or no Trump, it doesn't matter. But as that guy who jumped off a 20 story building was heard to say around the 10th floor, so far, so good.
Posted By: jgw Re: Social Media - 06/01/21 06:21 PM
My concern is not Biden so much as the rank and file of the Dems. The Dems seem to have absolutely no sense when it comes to running their mouths and making clever things to put on signs. "Defund the police" is one, for instance. That is, I think, why they lost all those seats in the house last year. They just couldn't control their mouths. Democrats, like Republicans, spend a LOT of time talking to each other and are pretty clueless of the other side, other than knowing they hate them. Republicans have specific messages which all Republicans stick to, its call discipline. Democrats don't. I am reminded of the wars we have had here over "Socialist". That word costs votes but that won't slow down any of the public mouths of the house. I think that they think they are right and everybody understands because they only talk to them that do. Unfortunately, for the Dems the independents don't, and the independents are the ones that can put them over the top. I am not convinced that the Dems simply don't understand 'winning' and 'losing' and I sure as hell don't trust them to watch their mouths.

So, its not so much about Biden as it is the Dems with the big mouths and thoughtless exercise of same.
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 06/01/21 09:36 PM
The Republicans have a Trump problem, especially with independents that they refuse to acknowledge. Yeah, the democrats have a mouth problem with slogans that don't mean what they want to say. I would say you're correct on the slogan, "Defund The Police," costing the democrats 13 house seats. So both parties today have their problems.

But I'd say the democrats problem is dwarfed by the GOP and Trump. At least today.

Trump has reportedly been telling people he'll be 'reinstated' by August

The man is deranged. Now if I were a democrat, I'd want his followers to just keep following him as that would tend, in my opinion, to keep the independents in the Democratic column.

It certainly wouldn't hurt if the Democrats to put a sock in AOC, Omar, Tlaib etc mouths as they say such outrageous things that tend to drive indies away. It is also very hard to convince independents that those three aren't the spokespersons for the democrats as they get plenty of air time and independents don't pay much attention to daily politics if any at all.
Posted By: Greger Re: Social Media - 06/02/21 12:41 AM
Ah yes...outrageous lefties are going to ruin it for the Democrats.

Everything they are saying needs to be said.

There are also a lot of lefties out there in the independent column, voters who aren't inclined to vote for either right wing party.

AOC, Tlaib, and the rest of the squad were elected by voters in their districts. If they need to shut up then their constituents will tell them in the next primary.

Personally I think all sides need to be heard and nobody needs to keep their mouths shut.
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 06/02/21 12:18 PM
That's fine Greger, but I'm looking from the point of view of attracting voters to win elections. Especially independent voters or turning them off and have them vote for the other party.

Primaries are political party affairs between very like voters and don't reflect America as a whole. Democratic Primaries represent approximately 33% of the American electorate as of 18 May 2021. GOP primaries, less than a third,29% to use Gallup's 18 May numbers. So we have those non-affiliated, less to non-partisans who's thinking for the most part are somewhere in-between the two major parties ideology. Although we do have some way to the right of the GOP and way to the left of the democrats.

Once the primaries are over, the battle then becomes to attract and get independents to vote for your candidates. Does a slogan like Defund the police help that cause, no. I'm looking at this in the mode of how do I get independents to vote for my party's candidates. It does no good if my parties candidates just get my parties base votes and loses independents. Then that let's the other party in power and you sitting on the sidelines.

Independents aren't all that political, their attention span is short. They tend to take whatever they hear or see on TV and run with it. Be it fact or fiction or somewhere in-between. If your an idealist, you want all these folks hollering out your ideology at the top of their lungs. If you're a political strategist, you want it toned down in an effort to attract those who really don't have a set ideology or political views to vote for your party's candidates.

Trump lost because he couldn't keep his fingers off twitter, the democrats lost 13 house seats due to the slogan defund the police.

But how one looks at these thing I suppose depends on one's goal. Winning elections or getting your point of view heard. They can be the same or they can be completely opposite.
Posted By: Greger Re: Social Media - 06/02/21 04:52 PM
That's fine Greger, but I'm looking from the point of view of attracting voters to win elections.

You seem to be extremely concerned with Democrats losing elections.
I'm not a democrat and don't care whether they win or lose.

They will lose roughly 50% of all elections.

What YOU are looking for is getting people who think like you to the polls.


Not my goal at all.

I don't care if all the centrists get scared over to the republican side. Then republicans would be in complete control....

What is it that happens EVERY TIME republicans take control....?

Disaster. Then your precious centrists scurry back to the democrats until they attempt to do what they were elected to do...

My goal is to get the lefties off the couch, to infiltrate the democratic party and to make it a true workers party.

A socialist party, if you will.
Posted By: jgw Re: Social Media - 06/02/21 05:16 PM
the Republicans have more problems than just Trump. That have embraced lying which, in turn makes THEM liars. That's just for starters. They have also abandoned the reality most of us dwell in. It just goes on and on. The problem is couching all of this in terms that don't offend. Whoever is in charge of Dem messaging needs help, I think. If they do it right, often and loud they can win, especially if they can bring themselves to exercise a bit of old fashioned discipline.

I would be happy to hear a Democratic candidate say, right out loud to an opponent: "You have knowingly embraced a big lie which, in turn, makes you a damned liar! By denying an election, which has been tested to exhaustion and accepted according to the Constitution of the United States, means you have a serious mental problem in relation to reality which is not good for any of us and you need help. In addition to that your rejection of the Constitution also makes you a damned traitor!" (I know, not gonna happen, but it should!)

We will see, eventually what happens.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Social Media - 06/07/21 02:46 AM
I find Trump's Facebook sentence modification quite reassuring: They said he is banned for two years, including time served, but then if he breaks any of their rules he will be banned for life. Trump will break their rules in his first post! He can't help himself.
Posted By: jgw Re: Social Media - 06/07/21 04:46 PM
Yep and its really odd. The man works really hard at failing and just keep on going from one loss to another whining all the way. What's really strange is that his true believers have to know/see this and continue to support one of the biggest failure I have ever seen.

Its actually more than odd. Anybody who connects with him seems to get infected by Trumpism as well! The man is a danger, pure and simple. I am amazed somebody hasn't suggested that the man be tucked someplace safe so he can't hurt himself or others!
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Social Media - 06/08/21 12:06 AM
In all sorts of other occupations, such a string of crazy behavior would result in a long stay in rehab or visit to a facility for recuperation. I don't suppose we have any facilities that can rehab somebody like Trump and turn him into a normal human being. We used to lock such people up in mental hospitals and force feed them "reality pills" or zap their brains a bit, until they came back to live in the real world. But we closed all the state mental hospitals down, and now the locos are living on the street or at Mar-A-Lago.
Posted By: perotista Re: Social Media - 06/08/21 12:40 AM
Hmm, I never really thought about getting people to the polls. Just coming up with a winning strategy. It doesn't both me if 40%, 50% or 60% of the people vote, what does is getting the side I want to win getting 51% of the vote and winning the election.

Yeah, I'm one who will vote one way one election and then the other the next. But I could be scurrying back to the GOP as much as scurrying back to the Democrats, That I think applies to all swing voters. What I've seen regardless of turnout, is when independents get angry at the party in power, that party in power pays a price, it loses elections.

1994 independents got made at the Democrats, the Republicans picked up 54 seats. In 2006 and 2008, independents were mad at the Republicans, the democrats gained 33 seats in 2006 and another 23 seats in 2008 along with electing Obama. Then independents got very angry at the Democrats which gave the House back to the GOP with a 63 seat loss for the Democrats. In 2018, it was Republicans independents were angry at resulting in a 44 seat pickup by the democrats and control of the house.

Another way to put it, the years mentioned above, the party in power took independents out of their comfort zone. The party in power did something to make them angry.

Perhaps the moral of the story is don't make us swing voters angry if you're the party in power. If you do, out you go. No scurrying back to any one party or the other. It's more about getting rid of the folks you're angry at.

If Biden and the Democratic congress keep from making independents, swing voters angry at them, they'll stay in power in 2022, 2024 and beyond until the Democrats do make swing voters angry at them and then out they go.
Posted By: jgw Re: Social Media - 06/08/21 05:19 PM
When I started reading the above I began thinking about how we have pretty much turned over how we 'help' the insane is to send them to prison due to our shutdown of facilities to do that.

Now we are also on a kindofa semi-shutdown of prisons themselves. I think this has something to do with the nations of northern Europe literally shutting down their prison (and then maybe not). In any case there are a lot of crazies out on their own. Last week we had a guy goto a gas pump and start distributing gas onto the ground, other cars, etc. and then shouting that he was going to blow everybody up! Then he changed his mind, went over to the casino and started literally attacking anybody he could get to until they finally got him stopped. He then went to court where he mumbled everything, had no idea where he was or what for which may or may not have been a law. The the paper noted that he had been charged, in court, something like 8 times in the last year but he skated everytime. I have no idea what they did with him this time but, I suspect, he is on his way to a little private room in a prison where he never gets out of.

Oh, a good thing. I have noted that school systems, up here, are using federal money to make sure that every school has a councilor and a nurse. Seems that those two positions, up here, have been abandoned (I had no idea). This might, in the end, help too.
© ReaderRant