US Elections 2020

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

What strikes me about it, is the lack of any sense by Graham that if his party were to improve its image, and develop policies that appeal to a wider set of voters, they would benefit from any kind of voting system, be it by mail or in person.

---

The problem is that that party has gone so far down it's current track that it is too hard to turn back, especially as the rank and file love the unrelenting 'us vs them' war that Trump embodies.

The critical juncture seems to have occurred after the 2012 election loss when the Republican National Committee did a report on ways to broaden the party's appeal, but it went nowhere because the party membership hated it. Since then their strategy has basically been to double down on appealing to their existing base, while relying on electoral manipulation to ensure they can continue to govern with minority support.

This doesn't seem like a viable long-term strategy unless the US effectively ceases to be a law-based democracy. But as they haven't paid any big electoral price so far it's unlikely many in the party will want to risk incurring the wrath of the party base by pushing for a different direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Commentators in the U.S. are trying to figure out whether we're looking at a slow-motion coup. The best guess of most legal analysts is that this is merely an attempt to placate Trump's ego before Biden takes office and give Trump something to talk about for the next four years. Doing that has risks of its own but I'm more interested in what happens January 20th.

---

The critical point seems to be what happens once the legal challenges are exhausted, presumably in the Supreme Court. I assume this will be some time before the Electoral College deadline of December 8. If Trump still refuses to concede and demands that the party support him they will have to choose to either go over the cliff with him or repudiate him.

I suspect McConnell and most of his colleagues are praying that Trump will grudgingly accept reality and spare them this invidious choice. Perhaps they will try to talk him down by promising that they will make the country ungovernable for Biden and that Trump (or his nominated successor) will have an inside run to win in 2024.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del06

I must say it's refreshing to see this level of discussion on a porn site! My contribution: I've been afraid all along of a coup, and I think we may be moving towards one with Barr coming out swinging, and Trump putting his lackeys in charge at the Pentagon. I've thought that the main bulwark against a coup would have been the military. I'm thinking the military must be at least divided, both the top brass and the grunts. It looks like Trump is getting his top brass in line.

---

I don't think a traditional Coup is possible in the US because one man would need the support of all three branches of Government, and it is not clear how he would rule over 50 states if they repudiate his authority. There has been a cultural coup in the sense that the President has abandoned the 'norms and values' that used to be expected of the Office -a degree of dignity, temperate language, an aversion to corrupt practices, but there is the question of Executive Orders. This unilateral form of power, though it can be challenged in Congress and the Courts, was allegedly forced on Obama because of an obstructive Congress, but his successor has used it, and seems to enjoy the power he thinks it gives him, and Biden I have read may have to use unusual means to get things done if the Democrats don't win the Senate and McConnell decides to sabotage policy. But that is not really a Coup. More like Presidents testing the limits of their powers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

I don't think its been the party of Lincoln for quite some time. Its more the party of Reagan and if the other Republicans stick with him, than that party is truly gone.
The main issue is that Trump and more importantly his supporters and/or the people who voted for him aren't going away anytime soon. If not ever. So the other Republicans have to find way to excise Trump from the party, but keep some of his supporters and the people who voted for him in the fold, while opening up the party to a younger generation.
As for your second question, it would be better if Biden had a simple swearing in ceremony than a big public event. But I get the sense (especially after the events of last Saturday) there are some who are going to push for the latter. Especially since you have the historical moment of the first woman to be sworn in as a the VP.

---

I appreciate your insight on these matters, and believe it nor not forgot about Reagan's influence when writing the above post. But I am not sure if it is the Party of Reagan these days, because he was not an economic nationalist, and in foreign policy his nuclear deal with the USSR was a major source of a cleavage in the party with those who thought he should have exacted more from the USSR to weaken them, becoming the Neo-Cons of the 1990s as a reaction. (Bolton, on page 15 of his book implies that Trump's hostility to the Reagan-Gorbachev INF Treaty was based on something Bolton had said on Fox News).
Indeed, if you then factor in the TEA Party movement, you might agree the GOP has moved in successive waves so far toward being an extremist party that neither Lincoln nor Reagan, or even GW Bush recognize it as their own. I hesitate to describe it as a Fascist party even though 'America First' is a re-cycling of Fascist and anti-Semitic slogans from 'old Europe' of a century ago, and there is both an extreme hostility to immigrants, and a current of vile hatred against minorities that was a common part of European fascism.

Instead, I think that there is a stronger Libertarian current in the Party than there has been since the 19th century, but that this accounts for the confused identity the party now has, much as the Conservative and Unionist Party in the UK has now become a Brexit party breaking with many of the Party's traditions, as well as its members. Moreover, I think there are confusions over policy in the Christian Democrats in Germany, while Macron in France doesn't seem to lead an identifiable party, but governs on a day-to-day basisi, or lurch from one crisis to another, be it Islamic terrorism or the pending impact of Brexit on the French economy.

Thus Trump entered an open field and used/uses resentment and confrontation to command the votes of discontented people, even though he chose the very vehicle for his success that has been responsible for much of the USA's ecnonomic and social problems, with the proposition, you might or might not agree with, that he might form his own party if he doesn't get what he wants from the GOP, a party to which he owes zero loyalty, but which he expects to be loyal to him. Obsessed with his view that the people love him, that here are enough to give him the power he craves, and the victory he needs, the future looks uncertain at the level of party politics, and we might as well throw in the critical remarks Ocasio-Cortez had to say about her Party's losses in the House and the tenor of the campaign.

We live in a volatile time -will the fall-out from this election lead to the settling of scores and clear the way in 2024 for a more boring return to what was once considered normal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

The problem is that that party has gone so far down it's current track that it is too hard to turn back, especially as the rank and file love the unrelenting 'us vs them' war that Trump embodies.

The critical juncture seems to have occurred after the 2012 election loss when the Republican National Committee did a report on ways to broaden the party's appeal, but it went nowhere because the party membership hated it. Since then their strategy has basically been to double down on appealing to their existing base, while relying on electoral manipulation to ensure they can continue to govern with minority support.

This doesn't seem like a viable long-term strategy unless the US effectively ceases to be a law-based democracy. But as they haven't paid any big electoral price so far it's unlikely many in the party will want to risk incurring the wrath of the party base by pushing for a different direction.

---

Fascinating argument, I had not heard about that 2012 report and I agree with the rest of your post. I think both main parties have problems identifying with the majority of Americans, but the ability of Repubicans to continue winning seats at local and Federal level means a catastrophic defeat has not forced them to reform. But if the Democrats are safe rather than bold, will they pay the price?

In addition to the military, yes Stavros, he would need Congress and the Court. But the Senate would probably go along with it; the Dems in he Senate and the House would be safe rather than bold (as you say in another post), except for the Squad and their ilk, who would probably be arrested on some pretext. And the Court -- well, that's basically his already. Not to say this is going to happen, but I don't think you're thinking outside the box of normality. We've got a delusional sociopath who would like to be a dictator, with the support of maybe 70% of Republicans (according to one poll I just read about) and the ability to command a lot of the repressive apparatus, and the support of a lot of big money. I don't see any readiness or ability in the Biden team to confront this. I hope I'm wrong.

If the US goes down the authoritarian path it seems more likely to occur in a creeping quasi-legal fashion, as has occurred in places like Hungary and Poland, rather than an overt military takeover. Usurping power by force after your own judicial appointees have ruled against you would probably be a bridge too far, even for this Republican party. People like Mitch McConnell seem to want to maintain a veneer of respectability to what they do, which is why he avoids specifically endorsing Trump's claims. Apart from anything else, the consequences are too unpredictable - eg prolonged civil unrest would not be good for business.

Rather than a concerted plan I think what we are seeing is more likely the impulses of a delusional malignant narcissist, combined with a party of moral cowards responding in whatever way they think will serve their political interests. I doubt that the Trumpists would actually have the competence to execute a coup plan - that press conference at the Four Seasons garden centre car park seemed to sum up their amateurishness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I appreciate your insight on these matters, and believe it nor not forgot about Reagan's influence when writing the above post. But I am not sure if it is the Party of Reagan these days, because he was not an economic nationalist, and in foreign policy his nuclear deal with the USSR was a major source of a cleavage in the party with those who thought he should have exacted more from the USSR to weaken them, becoming the Neo-Cons of the 1990s as a reaction. (Bolton, on page 15 of his book implies that Trump's hostility to the Reagan-Gorbachev INF Treaty was based on something Bolton had said on Fox News).
Indeed, if you then factor in the TEA Party movement, you might agree the GOP has moved in successive waves so far toward being an extremist party that neither Lincoln nor Reagan, or even GW Bush recognize it as their own. I hesitate to describe it as a Fascist party even though 'America First' is a re-cycling of Fascist and anti-Semitic slogans from 'old Europe' of a century ago, and there is both an extreme hostility to immigrants, and a current of vile hatred against minorities that was a common part of European fascism.

Instead, I think that there is a stronger Libertarian current in the Party than there has been since the 19th century, but that this accounts for the confused identity the party now has, much as the Conservative and Unionist Party in the UK has now become a Brexit party breaking with many of the Party's traditions, as well as its members. Moreover, I think there are confusions over policy in the Christian Democrats in Germany, while Macron in France doesn't seem to lead an identifiable party, but governs on a day-to-day basisi, or lurch from one crisis to another, be it Islamic terrorism or the pending impact of Brexit on the French economy.

Thus Trump entered an open field and used/uses resentment and confrontation to command the votes of discontented people, even though he chose the very vehicle for his success that has been responsible for much of the USA's ecnonomic and social problems, with the proposition, you might or might not agree with, that he might form his own party if he doesn't get what he wants from the GOP, a party to which he owes zero loyalty, but which he expects to be loyal to him. Obsessed with his view that the people love him, that here are enough to give him the power he craves, and the victory he needs, the future looks uncertain at the level of party politics, and we might as well throw in the critical remarks Ocasio-Cortez had to say about her Party's losses in the House and the tenor of the campaign.

We live in a volatile time -will the fall-out from this election lead to the settling of scores and clear the way in 2024 for a more boring return to what was once considered normal?

---

While I wouldn't be able to break down into percentages, I believe these are the factions of the Republican party:

Neoconservatives
Tea Party/Libertarians
Trumpers
Other- I'm guessing that includes any Republicans who could lay claim to Reagan's legacy.

While I don't even want to start thinking about 2024 yet, there are two names that have been mentioned as viable candidates for the Presidential nomination. Mike Pompeo and Nikki Haley. From what I can tell, Pompeo is a Neoconservative, while Haley has been a bit difficult to categorize.

Now taking into consideration that the party is able to remove Trump from the equation, but not the effect he has had on the party, I can see it being tough for Neoconservatives from gaining control. While it didn't appear that way at times, Trump's talk about ending the endless wars that the country has been involved in was one of the reasons why he was popular with some Republican voters. So I think the last thing they're going to want to do is hand the party over to someone who sounds like they still want to go to war with Iran.

So I think the future of the Republican party is going to come down to a fight between the Libertarian wing and the Trumpers/Others. Whoever it is going to be has to find a way to harness the energy and the enthusiasm of the Trump voter/supporter minus the fear/hatred of the other to become leader of the party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

The critical point seems to be what happens once the legal challenges are exhausted, presumably in the Supreme Court. I assume this will be some time before the Electoral College deadline of December 8. If Trump still refuses to concede and demands that the party support him they will have to choose to either go over the cliff with him or repudiate him.

I suspect McConnell and most of his colleagues are praying that Trump will grudgingly accept reality and spare them this invidious choice. Perhaps they will try to talk him down by promising that they will make the country ungovernable for Biden and that Trump (or his nominated successor) will have an inside run to win in 2024.

---

I think you're right but wonder whether the cases will make it to the Supreme Court. There is a well respected law firm here (Jones Day) that is challenging the ballots in Pennsylvania that were postmarked by November 3rd but arrived between November 4th and November 6th. Before the election the Supreme Court had been deadlocked on the legality of these ballots.

One of the most basic guidelines for whether courts hear cases is that there must be redressability (a doctrine based on the idea that courts must hear "cases and controversies" rather than issue advisory opinions). The outcome of the court's holding has to actually change the position of the litigants and I don't believe that losing by 35,000 votes instead of 45,000 votes is a redressed wrong now that we know the number of ballots. Maybe they can argue that Trump's ego is so fragile that a difference in vote total actually does cause a harm the court should recognize. We know the composition of the court is shaky but I think they should not grant certiorari to hear it.

This is by far the position with the most legal support. The other ones, including an equal protection challenge against mail-in ballots, will not go anywhere I don't think.

I hear your other point in another post about quasi-legal methods of seizing power. I think the things we saw them do in the lead up to the election were consistent with that kind of attempt. They violated the Hatch Act by abusing their power to campaign from the White House, they used the office of Presidency to try to suppress votes, and the performance of the Postmaster General was maybe sufficient but could not be described as good. If things go as expected, anything else they do will have to be more brazen and will result in incredible unrest. He would destroy this country if he tries to stay on after losing this election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

While I wouldn't be able to break down into percentages, I believe these are the factions of the Republican party:

Neoconservatives
Tea Party/Libertarians
Trumpers
Other- I'm guessing that includes any Republicans who could lay claim to Reagan's legacy.

---

Would it be correct to describe the differences between these factions as follows?

Neoconservatives - those whose primary concern is hawkish foreign/defence policy
Tea Party/Libertarians - those whose primary concern is hostility to government
Trumpers - those whose primary concern is nationalism/nativism, including white nationalism (this seems to be the main thing that distinguishes Trump from a more conventional Republican)

Another possible category is evangelicals - those whose primary concern is a conservative vision of the US as a Christian nation.

I'm not sure whether Reaganites are really a separate category, given that small government was also his main focus. The Tea Party seems like a more extreme outgrowth of Reaganism.

One issue is how much these different strands are actually in conflict. The Tea Party, Trumpists and evangelicals have been united in their strong support for Trump, so it seems that their views do generally overlap. In theory, small-government believers should be against trade restrictions, but they seem to have been prepared to accept them as long as they get their way on tax cuts and deregulation.