Has Trump pulled the GOP to the Left?

[sactoking]

He's the anti-establishment candidate in no small part because of his policies. He single-handedly made it OK for real red-blooded Americans to openly call out GWB's failures and shut down Jeb!'s chance to add his own. Just for that he might have already earned a go in the White House on a karmic scale. The fact is a lot of the GOP base leans much further left than they admit to anyone else and even themselves. Trump has finally made being honest about some of these things acceptable to the "tribe."

Edit: To break this down further, 20 years from now, whatever else happens, we won't have to put up with the rightwing BS machine historically revising GWB into the Great Ronald Reagan II because of one man, Donald J. Trump. It won't fly now, SC cemented it, and that impact will be every bit (as inversely) substantial as how the same rightwing BS machine invokes the image of the Great Ronald Reagan I today.

I stand by my theory. He's not anti-establishment because of policies because he has none. He's anti-establishment because he says whatever the hell he feels like saying and some people think that makes him "real." He called out W and beat Jeb! so that gives him street cred for the rank-and-file to bash W? Does the same logic apply to all of his deeds and statements relating to xenophobia, racism and mysogony as well?

As has been stated by others Trump isn't winning a majority of the GOP support he's winning a plurality. His supporters apparently like him no matter what but his antics appear to be fairly off-putting to a majority of Republicans.

In 2014 we experienced in Nevada what they called the "Red Wave." Our exceptionally popular Republican governor was up for reelection, there wasn't a remotely viable contender running against him, there was no Presidential race and no Senate races, and the Dems ran a very weak Lt. Gov candidate. The end result was that in a state that went for Obama in 2012 we had every single Constitutional office (Gov, Lt. Gov, Sec of State, Atty Gen, Treas, Contr) go red along with both chambers of the Legislature. There were some incredibly questionable candidates (Treas, Contr, etc.) carried by the Dem apathy. You may have seen that our original Speaker of the Assembly had to step down after some racist newspaper columns came back to haunt him and the infamous Michele Fiore was initially tapped to be Assembly Majority Leader.

If Trump wins the nomination I think we could see a national blue wave. So many Republicans diskike Trump that I think the party wiuld have a very difficult time uniting behind him and driving voter turnout. Many people will just stay home rather than vote for him. And they sure as heck won't vote for Hillary (or Bernie I suppose).

 

[Zorkorist]

You are over thinking this. It's Trump versus Hillary, and a no brainer.

-John

 

[compuwiz1]

You are over thinking this. It's Trump versus Hillary, and a no brainer.

-John

Who's the third party...the no brainer?

 

[Zorkorist]

A no brainer in that Trump will dismantle, Hillary.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Rode her hard and put her up wet.

-John

 

[lothar]

He has yet to get 50% of his own party's support in any primary or caucus so far.

He's doing a hell of a lot better than McCain did in 2008. I don't see anywhere where McCain got 50% of his own party's support in any of the early primary or caucus states either.

Iowa in 2008:

New Hampshire in 2008:

South Carolina in 2008:

Nevada in 2008:

Florida in 2008:

If not for "Winner take all" rules in Florida, along with many of the Super Tuesday states; McCain's 2008 campaign for the Republican nomination would have been on life support.
Romney had higher pledged delegate count than any other candidate prior to Florida's "Winner take all" shitty rules. This same shitty rules will benefit Donald Trump.

 

[compuwiz1]

A no brainer in that Trump will dismantle, Hillary.

-John

Oh, this. Yes, she needs to get a wax job on the carpet because when Trump debates her there's gonna be a lot of sweat. This will be no time for a hairy down stairs. 😉

 

[0roo0roo]

He was discussed on the show


Discussing the #RegressiveLeft with Dave Rubin
Sargon of Akkad Livestreams
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NzhFbXi8K4

 

[pcgeek11]

What's that got to do with it. It just means 60% of the party wants someone other than Trump, otherwise he'd be winning by a higher percentage.

It has everything to do with it.

Think about it.

 

[Brian Stirling]

LOL... some slaveowner is fucking your wife, eh?

-John

You'll have to help me out here as I've no clue what that's supposed to mean...


Brian

 

[Brian Stirling]

It does look like it's going to be Hillary versus Trump and if you think Hillary's a shoe in you better think twice. At this point the prevailing wisdom has failed time and time again and the idea that Trump is going to wither away hasn't panned out now has it. It may still happen as the field narrows and Rubio or Cruz gathers most of the votes of the ones that are now gone.

The leaders of the R party are pretty much all in favor of Rubio and that might happen, but don't think Trump is going away anytime soon. Rubio's a nice robot and I think the money is going to come his way soon in a big way as a way of stopping Trump. The leaders of the R party do not want Trump and the big money types behind them are even more so against the Donald.

Cruz is by my estimate the very image of the calculating, cold, lack-of-affect sociopath and would be the last one I'd want as president and I suspect he's going to drop away as the money floods to Rubio.

So, if it's Hillary versus Trump or Hillary versus Rubio I guess I'll be looking for a lever that isn't D or R...


Brian

 

[michal1980]

Everyone's income has gone up including the very bottom, you ought to be thankful they got anything since the Pareto Principle means they probably should have gotten less than the increases they have seen since 1980. And you go on thinking that only if you elect politicians like Europe that your sorry ass will somehow be saved.

So high taxes on wealthy (euro zone) don't result in high middle class income growth? w

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I stand by my theory. He's not anti-establishment because of policies because he has none. He's anti-establishment because he says whatever the hell he feels like saying and some people think that makes him "real." He called out W and beat Jeb! so that gives him street cred for the rank-and-file to bash W? Does the same logic apply to all of his deeds and statements relating to xenophobia, racism and mysogony as well?

No, because his level of xenophobia & racism is right in line with the base's. As for the misogyny, at least policy wise, he's far better than the rest of the field that's downplaying women's health issues and shutting down PP as fast as they can.

As has been stated by others Trump isn't winning a majority of the GOP support he's winning a plurality. His supporters apparently like him no matter what but his antics appear to be fairly off-putting to a majority of Republicans.

You can make that assertion about any of the others except the winning a plurality part. In SC 78% wanted someone other than Rubio or Cruz.

In 2014 we experienced in Nevada what they called the "Red Wave." Our exceptionally popular Republican governor was up for reelection, there wasn't a remotely viable contender running against him, there was no Presidential race and no Senate races, and the Dems ran a very weak Lt. Gov candidate. The end result was that in a state that went for Obama in 2012 we had every single Constitutional office (Gov, Lt. Gov, Sec of State, Atty Gen, Treas, Contr) go red along with both chambers of the Legislature. There were some incredibly questionable candidates (Treas, Contr, etc.) carried by the Dem apathy. You may have seen that our original Speaker of the Assembly had to step down after some racist newspaper columns came back to haunt him and the infamous Michele Fiore was initially tapped to be Assembly Majority Leader.

If Trump wins the nomination I think we could see a national blue wave. So many Republicans diskike Trump that I think the party wiuld have a very difficult time uniting behind him and driving voter turnout. Many people will just stay home rather than vote for him. And they sure as heck won't vote for Hillary (or Bernie I suppose).

You know those millions and millions of people Bernie keeps talking about? If Hillary is the D nom, they'll show up (to the extent they do), but it will be for Trump if he's the R. It might turn off establishment R's, but when the R base is excited they tend to win elections, and Trump will help down-ticket when you add up all those new/base R votes and those other R's that may hate Trump but vote the party the rest of the way down.

We'll see how it plays out, but conventional beltway "wisdom" has failed time after time predicting Trump so far.

 

[Jhhnn]

So what the hell is even your argument anymore except for "I hate rich people"? I show wages have gone up rather than decreased like you claimed, and you cite some completely unrelated shit. I show the U.S. income growth rates mirror other major industrialized nations almost perfectly, you ignore it to complain about Republicans. How you are anything but the tired old crank I called you a few posts ago? Hell, DMcowen posted quality stuff compared to you.

I said "share of national income" not wages.

I thought we were all supposed to benefit from Reaganomics, not that the fruits of the economy would flow almost exclusively to the top & stay there.

I also thought we were all supposed to get richer, not just get a bigger line of credit-

Notice that steep climb during the Ownership society looting spree?

Paying the vig on that will last another 20 years or so.

There's this, as well-

 

[glenn1]

I said "share of national income" not wages.

I thought we were all supposed to benefit from Reaganomics, not that the fruits of the economy would flow almost exclusively to the top & stay there.

I also thought we were all supposed to get richer, not just get a bigger line of credit-

Notice that steep climb during the Ownership society looting spree?

Paying the vig on that will last another 20 years or so.

There's this, as well-

So you've changed your problem from "our incomes went down" to "our incomes went up but not as fast as I think they should." Hmmm, let's use our critical thinking skills to determine why that might be. Could it be median hours worked has decreased since 1980?

Or maybe that income scales with hours worked?

Could it be that U.S. wages during the post-WW2 period were the anomoly, and both we and the rest of the world are reverting to mean?

Or could it be that our spending, lifestyle, and other habits are considerably different than the 1980s, for example we spend far more on houses nowadays meaning we are less likely to move to another state or city to pursue economic opportunities? For example, the average home size in the U.S. is nearly 50% larger than it was in 1980. But hey, you just keep thinking that voting Democratic will fix things. GINI ratio at an all time high of over 0.47 under Obama. Of course he's still has a way to go until he catches up with the increase under Clinton from 0.43 to 0.46, but I'm sure the next Democrat will manage to continue the trend of inequality going up far more under Democrats than Republicans.

 

[Jhhnn]

So you've changed your problem from "our incomes went down" to "our incomes went up but not as fast as I think they should." Hmmm, let's use our critical thinking skills to determine why that might be. Could it be median hours worked has decreased since 1980?

Nice straw man. You argue against something I never said.

Or maybe that income scales with hours worked?

Could it be that U.S. wages during the post-WW2 period were the anomoly, and both we and the rest of the world are reverting to mean?

Regression to a third world income distribution is a good thing?

Or could it be that our spending, lifestyle, and other habits are considerably different than the 1980s, for example we spend far more on houses nowadays meaning we are less likely to move to another state or city to pursue economic opportunities? For example, the average home size in the U.S. is nearly 50% larger than it was in 1980. But hey, you just keep thinking that voting Democratic will fix things. GINI ratio at an all time high of over 0.47 under Obama. Of course he's still has a way to go until he catches up with the increase under Clinton from 0.43 to 0.46, but I'm sure the next Democrat will manage to continue the trend of inequality going up far more under Democrats than Republicans.

And the scattershot set of desperate arguments, of course.

Mobility is only an issue at the personal level, not the macro level. Whatever opportunities that exist are fulfilled by somebody. When there are 50 applicants per job, 49 will lose out on the opportunity.

When the basic structure of the system remains unchanged as it has during Obama's presidency then the flywheel effect takes over. It's not like a Repub Congress or a conservative stacked SCOTUS will change that.

 

[fskimospy]

So you've changed your problem from "our incomes went down" to "our incomes went up but not as fast as I think they should." Hmmm, let's use our critical thinking skills to determine why that might be. Could it be median hours worked has decreased since 1980?

This is a great example of how to lie with statistics. Hours worked per week has been declining since at least 1947:

Funny, incomes went way up from 1947 through the 1970's, exactly the inverse of the trend you are claiming. I for one am TOTALLY SHOCKED that an august organization like AEI would neglect to put that in their chart.

Or maybe that income scales with hours worked?

Another great attempt to lie with statistics. Notice how the household income scale in this chart is tightly clustered around US median household income. Anyone want to take bets on what that chart would look like if they included ALL US households and not just those right at the median? My strong suspicion is that it would look nothing even remotely similar to this. You would likely have a very steep decline in hours worked and income at the bottom and an almost exponential rise in income/hours worked at the top.

Oops.

Could it be that U.S. wages during the post-WW2 period were the anomoly, and both we and the rest of the world are reverting to mean?

This could actually be a cause! 1 for 3!

Or could it be that our spending, lifestyle, and other habits are considerably different than the 1980s, for example we spend far more on houses nowadays meaning we are less likely to move to another state or city to pursue economic opportunities? For example, the average home size in the U.S. is nearly 50% larger than it was in 1980.

This is also a potential problem with people's expectations, but it does not explain the increases in income inequality.

But hey, you just keep thinking that voting Democratic will fix things. GINI ratio at an all time high of over 0.47 under Obama. Of course he's still has a way to go until he catches up with the increase under Clinton from 0.43 to 0.46, but I'm sure the next Democrat will manage to continue the trend of inequality going up far more under Democrats than Republicans.

Are you claiming that Democratic policies are a driver of income inequality? If so, which ones specifically? I'm also interested in what Republican policies you believe will reduce income inequality, haha.

 

[glenn1]

Are you claiming that Democratic policies are a driver of income inequality? If so, which ones specifically? I'm also interested in what Republican policies you believe will reduce income inequality, haha.

Keynesian "stimulus" and bailouts have been a huge inequality driver. But whatever it takes to fight your arch-enemy deflation I guess, even if it means directly propping up the prices of the financial assets held by the rich. But I guess you'll just continue to tell yourself that the 1%ers of the world are donating to the Democratic party just because they like your position on abortion or some crap instead of because you're making them way wealthier than the Republicans ever did.

 

[Jhhnn]

Keynesian "stimulus" and bailouts have been a huge inequality driver. But whatever it takes to fight your arch-enemy deflation I guess, even if it means directly propping up the prices of the financial assets held by the rich. But I guess you'll just continue to tell yourself that the 1%ers of the world are donating to the Democratic party just because they like your position on abortion or some crap instead of because you're making them way wealthier than the Republicans ever did.

Deflation is very bad for debtors. That's the vast majority of Americans.

The main driver of inequality is the tax treatment of investment income for the financial elite, those with enormous income. That's been compounded since the Reagan era.

The bailouts were necessary because of right wing policy run wild in the financial sector. They merely preserved existing trends while preventing the whole system from sliding down scale. It doesn't matter a lot when your net worth dips from $10B to $7B but it matters a helluva lot when your home value drops into negative equity while you & tens of millions of others are being laid off.

 

[fskimospy]

Keynesian "stimulus" and bailouts have been a huge inequality driver. But whatever it takes to fight your arch-enemy deflation I guess, even if it means directly propping up the prices of the financial assets held by the rich. But I guess you'll just continue to tell yourself that the 1%ers of the world are donating to the Democratic party just because they like your position on abortion or some crap instead of because you're making them way wealthier than the Republicans ever did.

I would love to see your research evidence that Keynesian stimulus drives inequality. Be as specific as you can. Also while I supported the bank bailouts, Bush signed them, not Obama.

So I take it that your choice to abandon all those other charts is an admission that you were lied to yet again by unscrupulous conservative organizations?

Finally, the rich tend to give quite a bit more to Republicans than Democrats:

https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2012&disp=D&type=V&superonly=N

 

[glenn1]

I would love to see your research evidence that Keynesian stimulus drives inequality. Be as specific as you can. Also while I supported the bank bailouts, Bush signed them, not Obama.

So I take it that your choice to abandon all those other charts is an admission that you were lied to yet again by unscrupulous conservative organizations?

Finally, the rich tend to give quite a bit more to Republicans than Democrats:

https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2012&disp=D&type=V&superonly=N

I didn't "abandon" anything, at this point I'm just content to sit back with Democrats driving inequality to record highs and enjoy the ride. Who needs Republicans when we have the well-meaning like you to make us richer than we ever imagined possible.

 

[VRAMdemon]

The Trump train is comprised of a large chunk of the demographic rung of the Republican electorate that the oligarch fellating GOP strategists have been taking for granted and shitting on for decades. They finally hear someone not parroting the usual super capitalist - quasi libertarian - holy roller - no more taxes ever! nonsense and they are in love.

Cruz could ride down out of Heaven on his fire-breathing Jesus horse, Rubio could finally find a personality and Kasich could suddenly become relevant. Yet, teflon coated Trump will have all the super duper angry white people in his back pocket and win the nomination.

All the money the Adelsons, Kochs and SuperPacs throw at the "establishment" guy (whoever that is lol) only makes the people voting for Trump love him even more! And even with all that money they can't prevent people from showing up and the polls and casting a ballot for him.

Trump scares them by not giving a crap about them or their money. And he's not appealing to the country club set either, but to the former pawns in their game who are refusing to get behind the plutocrats' hand picked candidates. TV ads can only go far - a master of reality TV can do better. They've educated the Republican base with Fox news and talk radio to believe in lies and to not do checking - and now they are surprised by someone who spouts even bigger lies.

Is there an actual "GOP Establishment"? We hear a lot of talk about it, but is it an actual group of people that can decide things and take action accordingly? Could "they", for instance" make Kasich drop in favor of Rubio or vice versa? Is Rubio really "establishment" who the fuck knows. I really don't know what that "label" is anymore. Really, the only thing they can do is endorse him and hope he loses the general election, then wait 4 years and try it again. I think that's what Bush and some others are thinking at this point.

 

[fskimospy]

I didn't "abandon" anything, at this point I'm just content to sit back with Democrats driving inequality to record highs and enjoy the ride. Who needs Republicans when we have the well-meaning like you to make us richer than we ever imagined possible.

I'll take that as a 'no, I can't provide any evidence for what I said' then, haha.

I sincerely hope you actually believe that stupidity that you just wrote, because then the logical thing for you to do is support Democrats. Thanks for jumping on the team! I don't really mind if you're supporting them based on a near total ignorance of basic economics. 🙂

 

[glenn1]

I'll take that as a 'no, I can't provide any evidence for what I said' then, haha.

I sincerely hope you actually believe that stupidity that you just wrote, because then the logical thing for you to do is support Democrats. Thanks for jumping on the team! I don't really mind if you're supporting them based on a near total ignorance of basic economics. 🙂

Yeah, I can't provide evidence for the evidence I provided. Or evidence for the evidence for the evidence, or whatever level of recursive idiocracy you seem to require. You keep on doing the good work of making us rich republicans even richer.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, I can't provide evidence for the evidence I provided. Or evidence for the evidence for the evidence, or whatever level of recursive idiocracy you seem to require. You keep on doing the good work of making us rich republicans even richer.

lol. I asked you what you thought caused the increase in Gini coefficient under Democratic presidents and you mentioned two things, one of which was signed into law by a Republican president.

The fact that you couldn't even get that right says a lot, but then I simply asked you for any evidence to support your one causal mechanism that was actually enacted by a Democrat. You can't provide any, because your argument is bullshit.