It's official: Trump Is History, Says The Prediction Professor

[stevenkesslar]

2 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

The site function is again fucked up.

Or it is Putin. 

@stevenkesslar

his GOTV point cannot be too much emphasized. In the two-week run up to both of Obama’s wins, my house here in N.C. was assuaded with (very welcomed) in-person stop-bys from these carloads of elderly black ladies emphasizing we must vote for BO.

By contrast, late in Hillary’s campaign, I got just a 2-minute in-person visit from this campaign person (very beautiful, and beautifully dressed, I think Vietnamese) kid, simply asking, Are you going to vote for Hillary?’

That right there is what I worry about.  As well as Putin.

Door to door, face to face GOTV is probably a no no in the areas that are strongest for Democrats.  Meanwhile, in these small towns and rural areas that's where it's probably safest.  Apparently President Toxic's followers are doing a ton of door to door right now.  I'm assuming they are looking under every rock to find non-voters they can get registered to vote for President Toxic. 

So there's all the normal GOTV stuff, like you said, and then all these other huge unknowns.  And it could work to the Democrats' disadvantage.

I have read things that say some of this could bite Republicans in the ass, too.  If people can and do vote by mail, it doesn't matter how big a mess the polling places are for that voter.  Meanwhile, rural and small town polling places could have a huge problem with staffing.  That said, I assume Trump volunteers will try to make sure all those polling places where it will be primarily President Toxic voters are staffed.

I'll be broken record.  This is why I'm sending money.  I think this year GOTV will involve:  Did you get your ballot?  Did you vote?  Did you return your ballot?  Did you make sure it was received?  Whether it's campaign staff or volunteers, that's what I hope people in the swing states are doing.

In a certain sense, this is a campaign volunteer's dream.  The frustrating thing I can recall as a campaign volunteer is calling people we knew were supporters who we knew had not voted yet.   Often enough I called them multiple times over a numbers of days, or even over a number of hours on Election Day, to nag them to go vote.  That will happen in 2020, too.  But this year there's an opportunity to say, "If you wait until Election Day, it will be a mess, and unsafe.  And if you wait to vote by mail, they'll try to prevent your vote from being counted.  If you want to dump Trump, you absolutely have to vote now."

I think it's to the Democrat's advantage to just be in sheer panic for two months.  Until we're screaming vote, vote, vote in our sleep.  Team Toxic has got the memo.  They'll vote.  What I seriously doubt is whether they can find a million or more new or disaffected voters like they seem to have done in 2016.  So if both sides push turnout and are successful, Democrats win simply based on the numbers.

Since President Toxic's base is older, that frankly means a chunk of his voters from 2016 have gone to the Godly eternal place that President Toxic will personally never be welcome in.    And other than people who were too young to vote in 2016, everyone else - by definition - is not among the most fervent of Trumpets.  If they were, they're already registered and they will walk through glass to vote.  So they may have a turnout problem of their own. 

One of my brothers lives in a small town.  He's right of center.  He voted for President Toxic in 2016.  He could be a poster child for the voter who wasn't in love with President Toxic, but thought he stank less than Hillary - who was also too liberal for his taste.  By 2017 his disappointment was already clear.  He was already saying Trump won't be re-elected.  He's 10 years older than me and he's basically not leaving his home, even though he's hardly in a COVID-19 hot spot.  So my guess is he may not vote.  Or he may vote for Biden.  I'll give him a nudge on that next month.  Although he lives in Illinois so it doesn't really matter.  

I suspect there are lots and lots and lots of people like him.  So despite all the loud noise from the True Toxic Trumpets, I personally don't buy that they will top what they did in 2016.  They may not even match it.

All that said, I think everyone should assume everything I said in the last few paragraphs is wrong.

Edited September 6, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[stevenkesslar]

22 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

This would explain why President Toxic had a love affair with Generals, and then a falling out.  If you buy this, which I do, it really is very scary stuff.

12 hours ago, tassojunior said:

Im not impressed with the humanity of many politicians especially, but for two more months these type of "someone anonymous thinks they heard" are going to flow like a damn bursting. 

Well, I wouldn't have posted it if I thought it was easily disprovable bullshit.  After all, that would be terribly unfair to a decent and truthful man like President Trump.

Actually, the reason not to do it is that this kind of thing can blow up in the face of the ones who started it.

Which is what's so interesting about this.  Presumably the people who started it are some of the most respected military leaders in the country.  I'd love to find out whether The Atlantic went to them, or they went to The Atlantic.  I suspect it's some of both.

General Kelly's silence is deafening.  All the denials from the Likely Liars like Pence and Pompeo only makes the fact that Kelly is not denying it more obvious.  And if President Toxic expects that Kelly will do the valiant thing and tell the truth, which will clear President Trump's highly respected name, why is he trashing Kelly?  The shit he is saying about Gen. Kelly actually CONFIRMS that he is more than capable of trashing military leaders his bone-spurred little brain has zero respect for.

As much as I respect him, I'll reiterate that I'm not that hopeful that a conservative thought leader like George Will can purge the Republican Party of its self-destructive factions when President Toxic loses.  But conservative military leaders?  That's a different thing.  Mattis weighed in already, publicly, in June.  But his words come to mind.  Be nice to every President in the room.  But also have a plan to kill him.  That's what this feels like to me.

This could go on for the next two months.  At some point, maybe Kelly will speak up.  Or maybe someone else will.  The longer Kelly waits, the more it sets him up to say, "Yes, it's true.  The President said that about my son.  But I felt I had an obligation to be silent out of respect for the Constitution, which mandates that the military is subordinate to the people."  That's a twofer.  He tightens the rope around President Toxic's neck for his contempt for the military.  And he also reminds people that President Toxic has contempt for The Constitution, too.

Biden may not have dementia, but I'm beginning to think I do.  My recollection is that the Swift Boaters killed Kerry's campaign, and that happened in September.  In fact, according to Wikipedia, they started the ads on August 4, 2004.  And the attacks and rebuttals on Kerry's military record ran through August, culminating in the RNC in late August/early September.

General Election 2004: Bush v. Kerry

I'd take a glance at the 2004 Bush/Kerry horse race polls.  When I looked at it I immediately assumed that the huge spike in early September was the "Swift-boating" of Kerry.  But that's wrong.  Like I said, that started in early August.  What moved the dial was the RNC.  It was a tie through most of August.  Right after the RNC W. opened up an 8 point lead.  It makes sense.  Nicole Wallace keeps saying they knew that if 2004 was a referendum on W. or Iraq, he would lose.  They had to make it a choice election.  The RNC allowed them to do that.

I have a few other reasons for bringing this up, one of which is obvious.  That did not just happen in 2020.  If President Toxic is going to make this a choice election - like between "Jobs And Mobs" - the RNC was his shot.  If he was going to surge into the lead, like W. did in 2004, we would know by now.  It just didn't happen. 

Poor decent, honest Donald!  Why can't a nice fella like him ever catch a break?

My biggest fear all year long is that 2004 was the precedent for 2020.  An unpopular President loses the election but wins because of the Slavery Is Good Electoral College.  Then even though his awful record makes clear he should lose his bid for a second term, in my mind, somehow he barely manages to win re-election.

That could happen.  But if you look at the 2004 horse race, there's no comparison.  First, before the clock started W. was at one point (right after 9/11) viewed more favorably than any modern President.  Second, all through Spring and Summer 2004 the race was close, and who was in the lead flip flopped - just like Kerry on Iraq, I guess.  Third, the fact that he surged right after the RNC suggests that a decisive chunk of America was actually open to hearing what the incumbent President had to say.

None of that is happening in 2020.  And time is running out for President Toxic.

Maybe we'll end up thinking of this as the Osama Bin Laden election.  A stealthy and capable military came in with guns loaded.  They took out a bad guy.  It was a team effort.  But we'll never quite know who took the kill shot.

Poor decent, truthful Donald.  Can't a good-hearted fella ever catch a break?  

 

Edited September 6, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[AdamSmith]

History has a way of turning on itself, if we have a little patience, and some disremove until it does.

[stevenkesslar]

9 minutes ago, AdamSmith said:

and some disremove until it does.

I assume you mean distance.

Completely off topic, when I read "disremove" my mind immediately flashed to my favorite scene in The Fighter.  Leo and Bale deserved their Oscars just for this scene.

""I've been doing this over 15 years.  She comes in, disrespects me."

"She don't mean no disrespect."

 

Anyway, I agree.  I don't mean history no disrespect, either.

 

[AdamSmith]

3 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

I assume you mean distance.

Completely off topic, when I read "disremove" my mind immediately flashed to my favorite scene in The Fighter.  Leo and Bale deserved their Oscars just for this scene.

""I've been doing this over 15 years.  She comes in, disrespects me."

"She don't mean no disrespect."

 

Anyway, I agree.  I don't mean history no disrespect, either.

 

I slipped into Elizabethan English. Please forgive. 

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, AdamSmith said:

I slipped into Elizabethan English. Please forgive. 

I actually found it rather charming.

Let me slip into something more comfortable.  We can be like two queens having a nice long chat.

[AdamSmith]

38 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

I actually found it rather charming.

Let me slip into something more comfortable.  We can be like two queens having a nice long chat.

Occurs that one would like to resurrect the first Elizabeth, and bring her iron fist over here as Executive to straighten out our own many messes right now.

[stevenkesslar]

Survey Of Texas Voters

So this is just another post about poll data, in this case about Texas.  The fact that it's a toss up between Biden and President Toxic is interesting in and of itself.  But I'll focus on other data is probably way stickier than the horse race poll about where Texas and America is headed.

There is almost no identifiable allegiance to any particular party anymore.  The only segment that identifies strongly with a party is Black voters, who are 66 % Democrats.  Among Whites, a very bare majority of exactly 50 % call themselves Republicans.  @tassojunior keeps saying "Independent" does not necessarily mean centrist anymore.  He's right.  My guess is a lot of the Black and Hispanic Independents are younger Texans who voted for Bernie.

Even more encouraging news for my party is that when asked who they plan to vote for in Texas State House races, 49 % say Democrat.  That included overwhelming majorities of Hispanics and Blacks.  48 % say Republican, including 56 % of all Whites.  I'm not even sure that makes Texas a "red" state anymore.

Sen. Cornyn is doing about 10 points better than his Democratic opponent.  Which is to say he's also doing about 10 points better than President Toxic. 

I'm not watching every Senate race.  But in the ones I am watching, Trump and the Republican Senate candidate are usually within a few points of each other.  So this will be interesting to see.  In 2016 there was no ticket splitting between President and Senate.  Every state that voted for President Toxic elected a Republican Senator.  In 2018 it was almost the same - all "red" states elected a Republican - but there were a few exceptions, like Jon Tester and Joe Manchin.   In terms of having governing majorities that can actually do things, I think this matters a lot.  If Texas votes for Biden and Cornyn, and Montana votes for Trump and Bullock, it suggests there is some kind of center that can potentially work with a Democratic President to get things done.

This poll says 10 % of Blacks in Texas will vote for President Toxic.  I'm going to assume that if Blacks in Texas are leaning one way ideologically, it's slightly to the right - just because it's Texas.  So the Rasmussen poll that says that it's a toss up in Pennsylvania because President Toxic has 27 % of the Black vote there just makes no sense to me.  Maybe it's true.  But I find it hard to believe Blacks in Pennsylvania are about three times likelier to support President Toxic than Blacks in Texas.

Nobody knows who will vote in this election, and how they will vote.  As a Democrat, I think it's better to assume that President Toxic may have a big lead in initial returns.  He'll declare that's because he won.  As mail-in ballots are counted, the chorus will be, "Fraud, fraud, fraud."

That said, Texas suggests it doesn't have to be that way.  

In the July party primary run-off,  43 % voted in person early, 42 % voted in person on Election Day, and 11 % voted absentee.

In the Presidential election, 53 % plan to vote in person early. 20 % plan to vote in person on Election Day, and 15 % plan to vote absentee.  Twice as many Democrats will vote absentee as Republicans - 22 % to 11 %.  Meanwhile,  26 % of Republicans plan to vote on Election Day, compared to 15 % of Democrats.

So voters clearly have gotten the memo.  4 in 5 won't wait until Election Day to vote.  No surprise, the 20 % who do plan to vote on Election Day is slanted to Republicans. 

My impression is that most states count the votes received early before Election Day.  It seems they are often released to the media as soon as the polls close.  So one big variable is whether those absentee ballot voters get their ballots in early.  But, in theory at least, Biden could have a small lead right out of the gate in Texas.  The 68 % of Texans who say they plan to vote before Election Day either in person or absentee lean toward Biden.  So President Toxic could end up winning Texas only after the Republican-leaning votes cast on Election Day are counted.

Again, I think 100 % of Democrats should be in a panic and prepare for the absolute worst.  But it's possible that President Toxic could be losing in some states that maybe could be turned around as more ballots are counted.

There's one other thing I find interesting about this poll that is an abstract point about ideology and mandates.  I'll return to my pal Alan Lichtman.  His core belief is that every Presidential election is simply a thumbs up or thumbs down referendum on the performance of the party in power.  If we don't like what we got, we'll try something else.  For 9 election in a row, that theory has been a good enough way for him to predict in advance who would win.

If you buy that, it's hard to buy the idea that elections are "mandates" for conservative this or liberal that.  Reagan didn't win in 1980 because of a mandate for conservatism.  He won because people decided Carter sucked as President.  Same with Obama in 2008.  He won because people were sick of W. and Iraq and The Great Recession.

That said, it's hard to argue there wasn't such a thing as "The Reagan Revolution".  Or that Reagan didn't kick off an era of governing conservatism in US politics.  But I think the two theories can be reconciled.  I've looked at poll data for Reagan's eight years, and Clinton's eight years.  The poll data suggest to me that voters became more conservative AFTER Reagan was in power, not before.  Same with Clinton.  There's poll data that suggests over the course of eight years Clinton nudged both the average Democrat and the average Republican to the left.

That would explain why W. could only get elected right after Clinton if he ran as a "compassionate conservative".  In some alternative Earth, maybe compassionate conservatism could have been a winning ideology.  But in the world we live in, it never really was.  Never Trumper Republican Stuart Stevens blames that on W.  "having to be" a war President.  That's debatable.  He didn't "have to" invade Iraq.  

I've posted charts like this one, which measures public trust in government, a bunch of times.  It correlates with what I said above about shifts in ideology, or "mandates".  

My belief has changed on this, partly due to Lichtman.  I now believe that if there is a mandate, it is basically a mandate to "get shit done".  That's hazier in an era like now when many people see the government as The Deep State.  But I'm with Lichtman.  Even most of those people expect results.  Not all of them are authoritarian followers who believe that Daddy will always do the right thing, even if means 200,000 dead Americans.

So it's no coincidence that the two Presidents who poll data says most moved the ideological needle in my lifetime - Reagan to the right and then Clinton to the left - are also the only two Presidents who left office having restored a significant amount of trust in government.  In my crude language, people believed they got shit done.

Most people did not feel that way about Obama.  2010 and 2014 were not examples about how he sold America on liberalism, and Obamacare.  I'd argue the single most important factor to explain all that was ........................................... wait for it ...................................... it's the economy, stupid.  David Axelrod privately predicted 2010's shellacking early in 2009.  Because he knew Democrats would have to own, and pay for, the economic free fall they did not cause.

That chart above could be taken as a sufficient explanation for why Hillary was swimming against the tide in 2016.  And why President Toxic will lose in 2020.  The only good news in that chart is that, hopefully, we've hit bottom.  And this is as low as trust in government can go.

Back to Texas.  What jumps out at me is that if Biden does win Texas, which is possible, this explains why.  It won't be a mandate for anything, other than change and some other President who will do the job better.  It's of course more complicated than that.  Texas is moving toward a tipping point.  The last Democrat to win Texas was Jimmy Carter.  Biden winning Texas would be as much of a reversal as Reagan winning what used to be the Democratic Deep South.  

That said, if a mandate for progressive politics was building in Texas, like Bernie was banking on, he would be the Democratic nominee.  Part of my read of Super Tuesday is that people were almost desperate to vote for someone - anyone - who they thought could actually just be competent in the job.  Biden hasn't really closed the deal on his own competence, either.

Even if Biden does win Texas, it suggests that it has very little to do with a "liberal victory" or a "mandate for liberalism".  I believe it would be a mandate to get shit done.  And if Team Biden can't manage to get shit done, 2022 will be 2010 all over again.

I'm reading that conclusion into these numbers.  But that is what they say to me.

Edited September 6, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[AdamSmith]

21 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

I assume you mean distance.

Completely off topic, when I read "disremove" my mind immediately flashed to my favorite scene in The Fighter.  Leo and Bale deserved their Oscars just for this scene.

 

On reflection & some re-reading, oddnesses like this in English come a lot from its having been compiled from Anglo, Saxon & Norman.

[stevenkesslar]

47 minutes ago, AdamSmith said:

On reflection & some re-reading, oddnesses like this in English come a lot from its having been compiled from Anglo, Saxon & Norman.

On reflection this makes me fell better.  At least they were all men.

I hope this doesn't sound terribly sexist.  But regarding Elizabethan English, I'm with the character Melissa Leo played in that scene from The Fighter.

I just don't like the idea of uppity women showing me disrespect.  And telling me how to talk proper.  

[AdamSmith]

2 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

I just don't like the idea of uppity women showing me disrespect.  And telling me how to talk proper.  

Agree entirely.

With one sole exception:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lady-Augusta-Bracknell

[Suckrates]

 

Kessie,

Lets start our own POLL.... How many from the GOP will be going to prison if Trump loses ?

[stevenkesslar]

7 hours ago, Suckrates said:

How many from the GOP will be going to prison if Trump loses ?

Probably very few, actually.  At this point, I think most have been indicted, convicted, or sent to prison already.

And with all due respect to Steve Bannon, I really don't need to see the pictures of that.

[stevenkesslar]

I keep reading stories like this one in conservative rags, thinking there might be something that signals a shift away from Biden.  But this is a good example of a disease that seems easy to catch these days:  right-wing logic that basically amounts to wishful thinking.

The Inevitable Implosion of Biden’s Campaign

It is doomed by a strategy based on a progressive myth about Trump’s base.

Quote

This brings us back to the Biden campaign’s fatal flaw. The former Vice President was chosen to lead the Democratic ticket because it was believed he was the candidate most likely to “recapture” the undereducated working class whites who delivered Donald Trump’s 2016 upset victory over Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately for the Democrats and the Biden campaign this voting bloc is nothing more than Beltway swamp gas. As Professor Carnes points out above, white voters without college degrees making below the median household income made up only 25 percent of Trump voters. In other words, only 1 in 4 of Trump’s 2016 supporters can be classified as working class by any reasonable definition of the term.

These voters aren’t dumb enough to fall for Biden’s working class shtick. As the Washington Post recently put it, “Democrats have ceded the working class to the GOP.” Biden’s acceptance speech at the DNC dwelt on such pressing blue collar issues as climate change, gun control, and social justice. He also insulted our intelligence by blaming President Trump for job losses caused by COVID-19. Meanwhile, he has endorsed another nationwide lockdown, called for a universal mask mandate, and taken multiple positions on fracking. The collapse of Biden’s poll numbers may be accelerated by the riots but, ultimately, they mark the inevitable implosion of a campaign built on a progressive myth about Trump’s base.

I guess the idea is that even though Biden has led President Toxic by 5+ % in the horse race poll averages and favorability polls all year, at some future point - but before November - he is going to implode.  Sounds like wishful thinking.

The whole argument doesn't quite make sense.  If we assume that President Toxic's base is "only" 25 % working class, that's actually a lot.  So if 2.5 % of that base peels off, that's the end of President Toxic.  I'm pretty sure that since 2016 some of the older White men in that 25 % are no longer with us.  And based on 2018, we know some switched to Democrats.  There's also a lot of young voters of every race that are now aged roughly 18 to 22.  Meaning they can vote for President for the first time.  I'm not sure there's a lot of new older White men who weren't around in 2016. 

Meanwhile, North Carolina is saying requests for absentee ballots are through the roof.  I read it's something like a 5-fold increase for Republicans, and a 30-fold increase for Blacks.  Nobody knows what it means.  But it doesn't sound like good news for Republicans.

So there may be an argument about how President Toxic's base is going to sneak out of nowhere and expand rapidly, much like COVID-19 has.  But this is not that argument.  Biden's positions on all the issues cited above have been the same all year.  So I assume the people that prefer President Toxic's views have been the people that are with him all year.  That's not an argument for the "collapse" in Biden's poll numbers, which have actually not collapsed.  

Take a look at 538's generic Congressional ballot poll averages.  I suppose if poorly educated Trumpians want something to think wishfully about, they can say that the lead Democrats have over Republicans has "collapsed" from a little over 9 % in July to a little over 8 % today.  Then again, the Democrats have had a solid lead over Republicans for the roughly year and a half those polls cover.  Not good news for Trumpians.  And the lead has actually been slowly but steadily widening for the last year and a half.  Again, not good news for Trumpians.

There may have been a progressive myth that imploded.  But, if so, that was during the primary.  I think I was right to think all last year it was a good thing the Democratic primary race would be settled in the Rust Belt.  That isn't quite true, because it surprisingly got settled early in March on Super Tuesday.  But Michigan and then Wisconsin confirmed that the progressive/democratic socialist dream was not to be in 2020. 

I think why that's so is a question for lots of analysis after the dust settles.  I'm intrigued with the idea that Bernie beat Hillary among non-urban Whites without colleges degrees in 2016 mostly because they couldn't stomach Hillary.  And man of them may have viewed Bernie as more conservative - not less.  So in 2020 when they had the chance to vote for an old White guy that is definitely more conservative for Bernie, they jumped at it.  What's yet to be seen is whether Biden can keep them in the general, or even peel off more.

It's probably best to just bag the concept "working class" altogether, I think.  The objective descriptor that seems to be more useful in understanding things is "Whites without college degrees".  The label speaks to education, and the importance of education in driving employment and good incomes. These were the people at the core of Bill Clinton's two victories.  And at the core of Hillary's loss.  Mostly, all indications are that Biden will do significantly better with this group than Hillary did.  So much for "implosions".

Biden outlines post-Labor Day strategy to win White House

Quote

While there is some evidence of a tightening race in key swing states, Mike Donilon, Biden’s chief campaign strategist and longtime adviser, said it was “imperative” for Trump to move his numbers more following the Republican National Convention.

“And that didn’t happen,” Donilon told reporters on a Zoom call Friday.

Another Biden ally close to the campaign put it this way: “Our message is working. We are systematically addressing the biggest problems on people’s minds,” including the pandemic, the economy and racial inequality.

“The polls are stable because the support is real,” the ally said. 

An ABC-Ipsos poll released Friday found that 55 percent trusted Biden to keep the country safe. 

The poll also showed Biden leading Trump 56-42 percent on the issue of keeping families safe. Fifty-nine percent said they believed Biden would reduce violence in the country, compared to 39 percent for Trump. 

“This is something we will keep highlighting over and over again,” said another longtime Biden ally. “We need to keep saying ‘Look at Trump’s America. Look what’s happened during his time in office.’ This isn’t some mythological time. This is his mess.” 

 

That sums it up nicely for me. 

Until proven wrong, I will continue to think that the most important things Biden needs to do to close the deal is focus on the economy, stupid.  I suspect the kernel of truth in that Spectator article is that Whites and Hispanics and a small number of Blacks without college degrees who are in the "working class" bucket do worry about jobs, guns, and Democrats going too far.  November will tell us the parameters for how many of these folks want to be in the Democratic tent.  And how many are now the core of the Donald Trump (Sr. or Jr.) Republican Party.

I'm not sure it's not a good thing for many of them to populate the Toxic Trump Party.  If they love guns and fear The Green New Deal, and will vote for any old White man like Bernie or Biden over Hillary or Elizabeth every time, Democrats are arguably better off without them.  

Until proven wrong, I thing Rahm's "metropolitan alliances" are the thing to focus on.  And I actually think Democrats have a better chance of building a progressive party that can win majorities if we go that route.  

I read an interesting article recently I can't relocate by an academic who said that in 2020 Democrats are lucky, because President Toxic is alienating suburban "housewives" he doesn't understand.  She argued soon enough the Democrats' luck will run out.  And we'll have to face our own ignorance of the suburbs as they actually exist today. 

She focused on zoning and housing.  Her point is Millennials are - who'd a thunk? - making the same housing choices as their parents.  They want to live in single family homes that are safer, and have more space.  To them, The Green New Deal apparently includes aspirations to own a home.  So this multi-family housing/high density push is an argument Democrats can't win, she thinks.  People who left cities and moved to suburbs simply can't be convinced it would be better for those suburbs to be like the cities they left. 

This makes sense to me.  Every year or two there's some Big Lie the media persuades us is the truth.  2006:  Home prices never go down.  2008:  Frugality is in and the rich will stop flaunting their wealth.  2010:  Home prices will never recover to 2006 levels.  So this stuff about Millennials being into a "sharing culture" and not wanting to own things like homes has never been an idea I've believed.  I figured growing older and having kids would straighten that out. 

So I agree this is, as the author describes, a "time bomb" for Democrats.  But that's a battle (or bomb) for another day.  Zoning is of course typically a local issue.  But I'd be happy if the 20's is when we bring back Clinton's homeownership strategies from the 90's.  And this time toughen the laws to make sure the predatory lenders and Wall Street derivatives peddlers can't fuck it up again the next time a Republican wins.  

Speaking of Big Business, two more tidbits that are good news, and related to all this at the margins.

Pro-business Chamber of Commerce is backing 23 vulnerable House Democratic freshmen for reelection

I usually don't agree with the Chamber of Commerce.  This cycle, we're strange bedfellows.  Most of the Democrats on that list were freshly minted in 2018, and won in districts President Toxic carried in 2016.  I don't know about the American Spectator.  But it seems like the Chamber of Commerce sees the handwriting on the wall.  As do I, hopefully.  The ones on that list in California are the ones I've been sending money to.

And on the flip side, there's this:

How New York City’s Democratic Socialists Swept the Competition

All this suggests that after the dust settles, the Democratic tent is going to be bigger, and messier.  Good for us Democrats!

If there was a notion that there was a latent democratic socialist majority in the farms and broken factory towns of Michigan or Wisconsin, that's what imploded this Spring.  One of the reasons I feel better about Biden is that governing a tent full of urban progressives on the left and Chamber types on the right will be difficult, and perhaps impossible.  Biden's unique skill and reason for survival has always been that he is good at feeling and negotiating his way toward the center.  And usually he has done that by coming from the left.  (I know, I know.  For some he is a right-wing fascist war monger.)

The best case scenario is he does what Bill Clinton did.  By making things better for most people, he could end up nudging the center to the left, like Clinton did.  Like Clinton, that will mean that lots of his party is to his left.  If we're going to have an implosion, that's the one I'm most worried about.  An implosion of governing, not campaigning.  But that's a worry for another year.  After President Toxic is flushed back down into the sewer.

 

Edited September 7, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[Suckrates]

4 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

Probably very few, actually.  At this point, I think most have been indicted, convicted, or sent to prison already.

And with all due respect to Steve Bannon, I really don't need to see the pictures of that.

Oh cum on,  wouldnt seeing Jared in stripes on his knees getting butt fucked TIT-Tillate you just a bit ?     I am leaking just thinking about it !  

And Ivanka with her head shaved munching on muff ?     And DJT, in a solitary cell mumbling "Obama did this".....

[AdamSmith]

On 9/6/2020 at 9:52 PM, AdamSmith said:

On reflection & some re-reading, oddnesses like this in English come a lot from its having been compiled from Anglo, Saxon & Norman.

http://anglo germanic language tree

[Latbear4blk]

 

[lookin]

On 9/4/2020 at 2:56 PM, stevenkesslar said:

I really miss Lookin from Daddy's forum.  He was a very thoughtful poster.  And he kept bringing up authoritarianism as a theme to explain Trumpism.  . . .   Dean and him were obviously reading the same books.  Because everything Dean is saying echos points Lookin has made for years.

Much obliged to you, @stevenkesslar, for the shoutout and particularly for keeping the issue of authoritarianism alive.  I couldn't get much traction on the subject either here or at Daddy's.  Which is a disappointment, as I think Trump's base of authoritarian followers will have more impact on the election and on the future of our democratic institutions than will any three-point lead in the polls.  As I've posted before, I think a ten-point lead on election day will be necessary to get enough folks off their asses to fight for our democracy on our own home front should Trump refuse to leave office.

It's been a puzzle to me how reluctant we are to even perceive, let alone attend to, the destabilizing influence a large minority of authoritarian followers can have on democratic institutions.  It may have to do with how committed authoritarian followers can be.  Recently I watched a documentary on Hitler's last days in the bunker when he told his secretary and other office workers to make a run for it.  As they made their way through what remained of the German forces still guarding central Berlin, they watched as German soldiers were shot and killed by other German soldiers who accused them of dishonoring their oath to the Fürher.  And this was after they knew that Hitler had already killed himself.

Recently read an article that puts the case as strongly as I've ever seen.

The Trumps are Gaslighting a Collapsing America
Ever Wondered How Authoritarianism Happens? Exactly Like This.

 

The author, whom I've never read before, thinks the threat of Trump's refusing to leave office, even after losing the election, is so strong that it would be a mistake to wait until November 3rd to get rid of him.  He thinks the solution is for five million U. S. citizens to march on Washington now and refuse to leave until Trump resigns.

Glad to see the increasing discussion of authoritarianism in the last few months and especially the last few weeks.  Relative to what we should be doing, I think we're still sleepwalking.  But even hearing the word regularly in the mainstream media is a step up from where we have been.

I had long thought that the Holocaust and the destruction of Germany in World War II would be a lesson that would remain with us for generations but, for some reason, we seem to forget about the deadly destruction of authoritarianism very predictably and apparently very quickly.  "Drink the Koolaid" has morphed into a toss away line only two generations after a thousand authoritarian followers killed themselves and their children by doing so on the instructions of a single loon.

Appreciate your linking the John Dean book and his interview with Amy Goodman.  He apparently has a recommendation for how to deal with authoritarian followers, but none of the reviews mentioned what it was.  I remain a firm believer that we do need to engage with authoritarian followers and find a way to absorb them into our society.  As I believe there's a genetic component to authoritarianism, I don't believe it will go away.  And, unless we want to let it bring down our society on a regular basis, we'll have to find a way to incorporate it.

Glad to see so many of my Forum homies still thinkin' and still postin'.  For some reason, my off-board activities have ramped up during the pandemic and it's been too much of a stretch to follow both sites or even both political forums.  But it does my heart good to see everyone engaging so thoughtfully during this critical time.  

[stevenkesslar]

Howdy @lookin.  It's great to read your post.  I was not even aware that you posted here.  Post more!  

I of course realize that I am the liberal Bloviator In Chief.  But it's clear that the social media silos are hardened so much right now that there is almost no possibility of thoughtful discussion with MAGA conservatives.  Even the most thoughtful ones tend to use facts and logic to defend anything President Toxic says or does.  We all do that, of course.  But this is extreme.  Perfect example:  a story that's really about President Toxic's ever-worsening relationship with the military over three years is being reduced by the blowhards to one incident in France.  And rather than actually reporting on that, they lie about Bolton denying it, and use the official record as their cover.  As if the official record was going to say, "Trump thinks the military are suckers and losers."  What's the point of debate?

I include that because it's also a perfect example of authoritarian followers.  It's understandable that any Republican would perhaps pop a chub when given the opportunity to throw a dart at Hillary.  But taking aim at the military?  Dismissing stories about President Toxic not caring about bounties on US soldiers?  How do you call yourself a conservative and just dismiss that?  So, yeah, that's authoritarianism for you.

8 hours ago, lookin said:

Appreciate your linking the John Dean book and his interview with Amy Goodman.  He apparently has a recommendation for how to deal with authoritarian followers, but none of the reviews mentioned what it was.  I remain a firm believer that we do need to engage with authoritarian followers and find a way to absorb them into our society.  As I believe there's a genetic component to authoritarianism, I don't believe it will go away.  And, unless we want to let it bring down our society on a regular basis, we'll have to find a way to incorporate it.

I will repeat what I said in my blovia-post.  My knowledge of Dean's ideas is superficial.  So he probably has a detailed list of how to deal with authoritarian followers. Like you, I could not find it in a review or interview.

That said, I think he has a bottom line.  He said it in his interview with Amy:  "They understand defeat."  I think the timing of his book may have something to do with that.  I can't speak for him.  But I suspect he feels the best thing we can possibly do right now is defeat them. 

I don't think he sees authoritarian followers as "let's meet in the middle" types.  Let's go to the extreme.  Perhaps they're more like those loyal German soldiers you cited, whose response to disloyalty after Hitler was dead and the war was essentially over was to blow the brains out of "disloyal" soldiers, anyway.  By the way, that's a good reason not to be around MAGA diehards right after they lose.  

Which is not to say they will then just go away.  Dean says emphatically they won't.  Another thing he mentioned that factors in is that there has been a massive shift of authoritarians to the Republican Party.  That right there could explain a lot of shift that has happened.  Maybe the shift of some Democrats to President Toxic has elements of racism, or sexism, or just plain anger.  But the idea that President Toxic makes them feel like Daddy will take care of it, to paraphrase Dean, makes sense to me.  It goes without saying that they won't be overly critical about judging Daddy's success.

If that's right, and Biden wins, it won't be a good time to be a Republican.  If there is such a thing as a "Biden Republican", they are by definition people repulsed by the MAGA conservatives, who respond favorably to a dominating leader like President Toxic.  So it's hard for me to imagine that a tent full of losing Trumpians are going to quickly rush over to the Democratic tent to join their ex-Republican Never Trumper friends.

More likely, they'll double down on their feelings of anger and loss and conspiracy.  Since they are a minority, it is arguably better to have them in somebody else's tent, anyway.

For now, my read of the timing and summaries of Dean's book is that he thinks we just need to defeat them.  If we use the examples of Hitler and Mussolini, we know that defeating an authoritarian does change things.  So at least for now I think the main value of Dean's book is to help us understand what we're dealing with.  And why a majority of Americans have to speak up, vote, and defeat President Toxic.

I'll make one criticism of Dean's approach that is academic.  I bring it up mainly because it speaks to your point about why more people aren't interested in this.

I understand why he keeps referring to this field as "science".  And he uses the "science" lingo like "authoritarian followers" and "social dominants" and "double highs".  Some of the terms confused me.  I think he wants to ground this in the idea that this is as solid as 2 + 2 = 4.  It's not some cult theory.

That said, I think it also limits the ability to connect with people about this.  President Toxic's supporters can explain away 200,000 dead Americans and say their guy did a great job with COVID-19.  If they can do that, dismissing another egghead is a piece of cake.  They won't be reading Dean's book.  Nor will President Toxic.

Bill Clinton's language for this kind of threat was that some people are "strong and wrong".  That language makes sense.  It may be better than gambling that grounding this is science will legitimize it to people who happily ignore science, anyway.  Dean leans fairly heavily on science.  That implicitly tells me Dean is NOT really speaking to authoritarian followers.  He almost certainly knows they'll just dismiss him as another egghead Deep Stater.

 

I've got my script written for after President Toxic loses.  The bumper sticker is this:  "You lost.  Trump is a loser.  L.O.S.E.R."

That may sound bitchy.  But I'm serious.

That clip above is from right before President Toxic won in 2016.  It's my go-to clip on explaining a few things as I see them.  First, President Toxic won more based on hope than fear in 2016.  Second, he won on winning.    The most interesting part of that video to me is watching the faces of the crowd.  It is like an orgasm.  They love it.

Dean used the phrase in one interview, "Daddy will take of everything."  It's not much of a stretch to say, "Daddy is going to win  big.  Daddy is going to win for you."

So I think there is some value in undeniable reality.  When President Toxic loses in November, that means he didn't win.  It means he's a loser.   A big loser.   It means they didn't win their factories back.  It means they didn't win their jobs back.  It means they have a bigger mess than when he was elected.  It means they lost.  Oh, and let's throw COVID-19 in as a bonus.

Again, I'm aware this sounds bitchy, or maybe mean.  But to quote Dean, verbatim, one things they understand is defeat.  It makes sense to me that the first thing that has to sink in is defeat.  You lost.  Your guy lost.  He's a loser.  Loser.  Loser is spelled L.O.S.E.R.  Loser. Do you get it?  Loser."

I'm of course going overboard.  But your over the top example of the German soldiers makes my point, I think.  These folks are not going to have a personal Enlightenment.  Many of them will never feel they were wrong.  I was shocked in the late 1970's when I lived in Bavaria for a Winter to learn there were older Germans who STILL worshiped Hitler.    The loyal German soldiers shot the innocent ones because they needed to still believe they were right.

Since I'm going to Hitler, I need to qualify that Trump is not Hitler.  And his followers are not Nazis.  But many of them are authoritarian followers.  They will not lose easily.  In their minds, they may always feel they were right.

After Charlottesville, Schwarzenegger said that right winger MAGA types should not be glorifying Nazi flags.  He said he knows better than most, since he grew up in Austria.  The Nazis he experienced were old, broken, and bitter men, he said.  I think that's going to be part of the picture here, as well.

My other guess is that authoritarian followers will decide for themselves whether and how they become un-followers.  The flip side of Dean's assertion that lots of authoritarian followers migrated to the Republican Party because of President Toxic is that some of them may choose to migrate back when he is defeated.  That may be a mixed blessing for Democrats.  But I agree with you that once the shock of defeat wears off, it makes sense to have a nuanced approach. 

"You lost, and you deserved to lose" is a valuable thing to say, I think.  But we need a lot more than that.

Edited September 9, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[AdamSmith]

10 hours ago, lookin said:

Much obliged to you, @stevenkesslar, for the shoutout and particularly for keeping the issue of authoritarianism alive.  I couldn't get much traction on the subject either here or at Daddy's.  Which is a disappointment, as I think Trump's base of authoritarian followers will have more impact on the election and on the future of our democratic institutions than will any three-point lead in the polls.  As I've posted before, I think a ten-point lead on election day will be necessary to get enough folks off their asses to fight for our democracy on our own home front should Trump refuse to leave office.

It's been a puzzle to me how reluctant we are to even perceive, let alone attend to, the destabilizing influence a large minority of authoritarian followers can have on democratic institutions.  It may have to do with how committed authoritarian followers can be.  Recently I watched a documentary on Hitler's last days in the bunker when he told his secretary and other office workers to make a run for it.  As they made their way through what remained of the German forces still guarding central Berlin, they watched as German soldiers were shot and killed by other German soldiers who accused them of dishonoring their oath to the Fürher.  And this was after they knew that Hitler had already killed himself.

Recently read an article that puts the case as strongly as I've ever seen.

The Trumps are Gaslighting a Collapsing America
Ever Wondered How Authoritarianism Happens? Exactly Like This.

 

The author, whom I've never read before, thinks the threat of Trump's refusing to leave office, even after losing the election, is so strong that it would be a mistake to wait until November 3rd to get rid of him.  He thinks the solution is for five million U. S. citizens to march on Washington now and refuse to leave until Trump resigns.

Glad to see the increasing discussion of authoritarianism in the last few months and especially the last few weeks.  Relative to what we should be doing, I think we're still sleepwalking.  But even hearing the word regularly in the mainstream media is a step up from where we have been.

Site not working again. Reply later. WTF.

[lookin]

14 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

"You lost, and you deserved to lose" is a valuable thing to say, I think.  But we need a lot more than that.

Always a pleasure when you get the bit between your teeth, @stevenkesslar.    I know the discussion is going to advance.

If that's where Dean ends up, I agree with you that we need a lot more than that.

I went back to the thread I began at Daddy's a year ago and I'll stand by it, in particular some of the basics:

Authoritarianism has long been understood to encompass a set of personality traits strongly associated with aversion to difference and desire for conformity to prevailing social norms and proper authority. Though many scholars have linked authoritarianism to many attitudes and traits, a handful stand out: a general moral, political and social intolerance, an aversion to ambiguity and a related desire for clear and unambiguous authority.

From a study of authoritarianism, here are some of the things that popped out for me:

On any given day, about a quarter of the population can be classified as having fairly extreme authoritarian values. They want simple solutions, even to complex problems.

Authoritarians tend to be religious, especially those who adopt a literal interpretation of the Bible.

After religion, the next strongest predictor of authoritarianism is reduced education, specifically the lack of a college degree. Those without one are much more likely to be authoritarians than those who have a college degree.

The twenty-five percent figure, as well as the degree of authoritarianism, fluctuate over time and one of the biggest factors driving the shift is the level of perceived threat. A higher level of perceived threat will bring more folks into an authoritarian mindset and make folks who are already there more extreme in their views.

During the Cold War, there wasn't much difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party in terms of their share of authoritarians. Once that external threat was removed, however, Republicans went looking for another one, found a threat in the form of Willie Horton, and proceeded to become the party that knew how to scare authoritarians and then offer to make them feel more secure. In 1992, authoritarians skewed seven points toward the Republican party. By 2004, it was twenty points.

In 1992, economic issues were very important to voters, Republican and Democratic. The desire for authoritarianism was much less than the desire for a livable income. But by 2004, authoritarianism had twice the effect on voters as did economic issues.

 

In the year since that post, I've thought a lot more about the authoritarian follower and why we need to understand them and find a way to keep them from bringing down our society, which, if history is any guide, they have the ability to do.

Authoritarian followers also, under certain conditions, have the ability to preserve our society which is why I believe there is a genetic component to authoritarianism that makes sure it persists through the generations.  (And shows up in other species.)  Imagine, for example, an outside threat to our society where immediate and lockstep obedience to a single leader is the only thing that will keep us from being overrun.  Think War of the Worlds as an example.

Just because we've been lucky enough not to be invaded by aliens during our lifetimes doesn't mean we won't be and there may come a time when blind obedience is necessary for survival.  So Ma Nature, in all her wisdom, makes sure we have among us those who will do little else but look for outside threats and blindly follow orders when they appear.

The downside of having such authoritarian followers in our midst is we have to keep them occupied when we are not under assault.  Otherwise, they can be coopted by ill-intentioned "leaders" who will exploit them for nefarious purposes.

Which, I believe, we are seeing now.

From what I understand and, as you say, I don't think authoritarian followers are interested in debate. Debate is for folks who can hold competing ideas in their heads and weigh them one against the other.  Authoritarian followers are wired to avoid complexity; they want a single idea.  And, unlike you, they want someone who will tell them what that idea is and what to do about it.

Of course, for this discussion, I am myself using simplistic arguments.  Between authoritarian followers and non-authoritarian-followers there will be shades of gray.  But one way to harden the positions of authoritarian followers is to stoke their fears.  Which all effective authoritarian leaders know how to do, cf "murderers, rapists and bad hombres".

So, knowing that these folks will be among us in significant numbers (about a third of us, I think) and for all time to come and, given that we can't "debate" them out of existence, how do we make sure they aren't coopted by malevolent authoritarian "leaders", like Adolf Hitler, Jim Jones and Donald Trump to destroy themselves and perhaps the rest of us along with them?

That's what I've been spending the past year or so trying to figure out.

I'll try to share some preliminary thoughts in a later post.

[stevenkesslar]

I'm not sure I agree with you that authoritarian tendencies are Mother Nature at her finest.  The fact that you had to go to War Of The Worlds - fiction - to argue how authoritarianism helps us kind of makes my point.  And I'm not even sure that's a good example.  The only version I've seen is Spielberg's.  In the end, might made right, basically.  The aliens were winning.  The reason the human race was saved is science, and luck.  Earth turned out to be a COVID-19 sort of world for the aliens.

Hitler.  Mussolini. Mao. President Toxic.  I just named four authoritarian leaders that clearly put their countries through hell.  Trump did not really belong on that list until 2020.  But he does now. I suspect most of the 200,000 dead would agree with me - if they could.  Can you name four authoritarian leaders who clearly made their countries much better places?

Some of what I read about Dean suggests that education helps.  There are, of course, highly educated people who are great authoritarian leaders or followers.  But we agree on the mindset.  An intolerance for ambiguity.  I like Dean's simple language.  Daddy will take care of it.  And make it black and white and easy to understand.  That's the antithesis of the critical thinking that colleges profess to instill in people.  It fits that many true Trumpians think of liberal arts colleges as these places where they try to make you Gay - or, worse, a liberal.    (Oh my God.  I went to a liberal arts college.  I'm Gay.  And liberal.  Eek!)

(I went on a hike last year with one of my nieces and her husband.  He's from a blue collar family in Nebraska, but they met in college.  So he has a foot in both worlds.  I went off the rails with statements like I just wrote, about how young Trump supporters see college as a conspiracy to make everyone Gay and liberal.  He laughed.  But he told me that he has friends from high school who didn't go to college.  And I'm pretty much in the ballpark of how they really see it.)

Dean also seems to think that young people can solve the problem for now by voting in droves.  I'm not sure if he thinks that because they are younger, or better educated.  Both may be factors.  

That said, we agree that authoritarian followers will always be with us.  And you can make good abstract arguments that in some situations they benefit society.

What could possibly go wrong now?  I actually think President Toxic, The Sequel could land us in World War 3 with China.  In some ways it's reassuring that he doesn't like the military.  It's not reassuring that he thinks he's smarter than them.  And he's happy to use them as props.  Mostly, he's the kind of stupid asshole who would get us in a war even though he didn't intend to, I think.

If Biden wins, I can only imagine what horrors the MAGA types fear.  Given eight years, Biden will be fully senile - if he isn't already.  The Deep State will have us all in chains by then.  We'll be working in Chinese factories by day, and being re-educated in mind control camps by not.  I'm sure Hunter Biden wanting to make a few extra billion has something to do with it.

I think it's also probably a given that certain times and environments breed authoritarian followers and conformity.  It's not a coincidence, as you said, that during the Cold War there was greater conformity.  And, I think related, most people trusted their government.  If there is an argument to be made for Daddy knows best, or Generals know best, Ike was it.  It fits into the picture that instead of nominating a suspected drunk and sex assaulter like Justice Rapist, and then mocking the women who claimed to be assaulted, Ike chose to appoint William Brennan.  That would fit into a picture of how a more benevolent Daddy/General breeds conformity and consensus, and does try to make things right.

It's an interesting question whether the thing MAGA people fear most is China, or broken factory towns, or liberal cultural norms that are destroying America, or Blacks invading suburbs, or something else.  President Toxic is clearly throwing all the fear and hate and racism he can muster at The Wall to see what sticks.  If there is an objective driver, the data suggest it is not the suburbs.  It is those factory towns in Pennsylvania where an old way of life doesn't work as well as it used to.  If China is in the picture, it's because of those lost jobs.

Biden visits Michigan amid effort to rebuild ‘blue wall’

Quote

Biden’s aides believe his focus on the economy and Trump’s handling of the coronavirus will resonate with key voters nationwide but particularly in states like Michigan, which took one of the sharpest hits nationally from the pandemic.

The unemployment rate in the state spiked at 24% in April, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The statewide rate has since recovered to 8.7%, but Michigan has nearly 414,500 fewer jobs than it did when Trump was inaugurated.

Trump aides have frequently repeated claims about Biden’s ties to Beijing, but that’s proven problematic in light of Trump’s own kind words for China earlier this year in the early days of the pandemic. They have also ignored the Obama-Biden administration’s efforts to save the American automotive industry, based in Michigan, after 2008’s recession.

“Joe Biden is going to the state of Michigan to pretend to be a friend and ally to workers in the industrial heartland,” said Steve Cortes, Trump campaign senior adviser, “but he has proven over and over that he is a globalist and a corporatist who, as senator from Delaware, well represented corporate interests over American workers.”

Biden was set to speak Wednesday with autoworkers. His plan to stimulate manufacturing would also create a “Made in America” office within the White House Office of Management and Budget to ensure government projects use resources made domestically.

I think that article relates to this discussion.  When I read it, it was music to my ears.  It fits precisely with what I think Biden needs to do, particularly during the debates, to close the deal.  And to throw in Lichtman, he'd argue that whether or not Biden does a particularly good job, people do get it.  They're not stupid.  Or, they're not all lemmings looking to follow a leader off the cliff.

This election will be a test.  The most obedient sheep will buy the black and white idea that Daddy Toxic did the best job ever beating COVID-19.  And but for that, it was the best economy in the universe, ever.  Even those War Of The World aliens couldn't build an economy better than the one Daddy Toxic built.

If you're open to facts, and ambiguity, even before COVID-19 the Biden/Obama record on factory jobs in the Rust Belt was just better.  It depends on whether you blame Obama or Biden for The Great Recession.  If Americans did, they probably would not have been re-elected in 2012.  So if you start from Summer 2009, the bottom of the jobs free fall, Obama and Biden created about 1 million factory jobs.  It didn't come close to restoring the 5 million lost under W.  But blame that on W., not Biden. 

In 2019, factory job growth in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio was at best flat.  Some of those states lost a few thousand factory jobs in 2019.  The best economy ever?  Bullshit.  Daddy was in it for Daddy.

THREAT PERCEPTION AND TECH POLICY

How to Jump-Start America—and Why

That's another great article I've posted several times on Daddy's "Racism Is OK" website that is relevant, I think.  Note how the author says it marries "threat perception" to tech policy.  Interesting.  The article is a conservative response to the left-of-center book Jump-Starting America: How Breakthrough Science Can Revive Economic Growth and the American Dream.  It argues such a thing is possible.  I'd add it will be easier if people can get back to the idea that, just like in World War 2, government can be helpful in priming the pump of basic science.  (Assuming you value basic science, of course.)  The conservative author differs with the liberals in regards to how this could happen.  The liberals say that America's "all for one and one for all" spirit is enough.  The conservative argues there needs to be a serious threat - like Hitler, or the Soviet Union.

The question I wonder is what a new conformity would look like.  How would we get to it?  And would it be a good thing?

Does China need to be the perceived threat?  Would a new Cold War with China be unifying?  Or could the existential threat by climate change?  Or COVID-19 and it's sure to follow successors?  Or could it be some combination of all three?

Part of what I'm saying, implicitly, is that one way to deal with authoritarian followers is to become more like them.  I don't meaning we all become hateful little Toxettes.  I mean we try to find unifying - and probably centrist - ideas and also threats we can unify around, like we did before.   As you say, there is nothing wrong with conformity if the goal is to have jobs, and make the trains run on time, and to get a vaccine that works and that people trust the government to deliver.  

This is partly why I'm sending money to Democrats I pretty much like least, like Bullock and Hickenlooper.  The immediate goal is to win the Senate.  But the bigger goal is to win the center, and try to build unity around that.  For that to happen, it will happen gradually.  Authoritarian followers understand defeat.  But they also understand results.

I'll close with one more article.  It is all pretty much boilerplate pro-union propaganda.  My presumption is that factory workers who are proving to be good authoritarian followers are doing it partly because they want to be good factory workers.  That's not a bad thing.  At tis point, rhetoric won't do.  There will need to be results, which will take time.  But if there is a new center and unity to be built, I think this is part of the recipe. 

Joe Biden and Richard Trumka: Put power back in workers’ hands

Amid struggles, the labor movement faces an additional burden: a union-busting president

Quote

The plan starts with a transformational $2 trillion investment to rebuild America’s infrastructure, lead the world in clean energy and position our auto industry for a long, bright future. That investment will revitalize schools, roads and bridges; modernize our communities; and make our airports, seaports and inland waterways the finest in the world. And by finally investing in another form of infrastructure — America’s long-undervalued bedrock of caregivers and educators — millions of people will be freed up to pursue the dignity and security that comes from landing a good job.

Most important, the entirety of those investments will support a “Made in America” future driven by union workers. The materials to rebuild America will be made here at home. The supply chains will run through American towns. The jobs will be well-paying, middle-class union jobs.

 

Edited September 9, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[lookin]

1 hour ago, lookin said:

So, knowing that these folks (authoritarian followers) will be among us in significant numbers (about a third of us, I think) and for all time to come and, given that we can't "debate" them out of existence, how do we make sure they aren't coopted by malevolent authoritarian "leaders", like Adolf Hitler, Jim Jones and Donald Trump to destroy themselves and perhaps the rest of us along with them?

That's what I've been spending the past year or so trying to figure out.

I'll try to share some preliminary thoughts in a later post.

As promised, a few thoughts on how to deal with authoritarian followers.

Step one for me is always to try to put myself in their shoes, as fully as I'm able.  This part of the process is not one of "winning" and judgement needs to take a back seat to understanding.  While it feels uncomfortable to immerse myself in simplistic thinking, it's something I need to do for eventual enlightenment.  And I need to be empathetic to the "fear of the other" that motivates an authoritarian follower.  I don't have to agree with it, especially since my life experiences have shown me that it's unwarranted.  But I do have to imagine that I haven't had those life experiences and that the "other" is someone who can and will harm me.  I also have to pretend that my own thought processes are insufficient and that I need to trust someone else to do my thinking for me.

From that exercise, I've concluded that "debating" authoritarian followers will not be productive.  By definition, they're not wired to hold competing thoughts, let alone debate them.  They want simplistic answers and they avoid complexity.  All I'll get in return is repetition of the thought their "leader" has implanted.  The resulting frustration on both sides could stop the process in its tracks.  And that does seem to be where most folks give up and say things like the only solution is to "defeat them".  That may be one solution, but it's not a reliable one.  Authoritarian followers will not just up and disappear.  They never have.  They'll be back again, perhaps with a new and more dangerous "leader".

I'm also beginning to conclude that dealing with their fear, particularly fear of "the other", is necessary.  When I say "deal with their fear", I don't mean make it go away.  By definition, authoritarian followers are motivated by fear of "the other".  I'm coming to the conclusion that the best I can do is to try to persuade them to fear something more relevant that what they fear today.  For example, fear of South American immigrants who pick our crops, prepare our food, build our houses and care for our seniors is a fear without benefit.  Fearing the folks who help us all build our society is counterproductive to our wellbeing.  On the other hand, helping them redirect their fear to a would-be despot who will strip away their social safety net and eventually their lives or the lives of their loved ones might be a valid approach.  Perhaps I can help them realize that "the other" who should frighten them is not Dona Teresa who takes care of their grandparents but Donald Trump who takes care of himself and will toss them aside, just as he has tossed so many others aside.

Clearly, this is a work in progress and I'll stop here with hopes that others will weigh in.

[stevenkesslar]

I think we're both saying mostly the same things.  But we're coming at it from different angles, and with different emphasis.

My emphasis right now, and I believe Dean's, is they need to be defeated.  And they will understand defeat. 

Even if I'm right, that is not permanent.  As you say, they could be back for more.  Possibly worse, and as early as 2024.  That's when @tassojunior suspects we may get President Nikki, and fascism.

To their credit, I think part of why authoritarian followers understand defeat is that they are not stupid.  The reason to follow President Toxic is he promised they would "win".  If they didn't win, and they were badly defeated, some of them will do a rethink.

1 hour ago, lookin said:

 I'm coming to the conclusion that the best I can do is to try to persuade them to fear something more relevant that what they fear today.

The easiest solution to many of the problems would be a well-paying factory job.  Period.  What that says to them is that your fear isn't crazy.  It's actually quite sane.  It's real.   

We know that support for President Toxic in 2016 and 2020 was tied to being worse off, or living in places like Scranton.  The difference was in 2016 jobs was a promise.  In 2020 the lack of said jobs is a failure.  But that is clearly part of what is driving all the fears of immigrants, The Wall, China, etc.  And this is not a new thing, of course.  The fact that we mostly had vibrant industries that fueled middle class jobs after World War 2 is partly why we had more (mostly) positive conformity.  I'd argue there is a similar (mostly) positive in California today, built around the fact that the Silicon Valley economy actually does work well enough for lots and lots of people.  But it does require a different set of ingredients than the steel worker economy.

Part of the immediate problem is that talk of a Green New Deal does not help, and may hurt.  It just pushes the fear buttons.  Talk of the government doing anything may hurt more than it helps with some of these people.  The "Liberate Michigan!" protests were the logical and tragic conclusion of a mindset that the government trying to keep you alive means the government is trying to destroy your way of life.  The "Liberate Michigan!" folks of course did not see it that way. 

The bottom line is that in China people agreed with the government told them to do.  Arguably, Xi and COVID-19 are a good example of "good" authoritarianism.  I've read articles about how most Chinese accepted masks and fever clinics and strong-armed protocols as a sort of patriotic duty.  Regardless, you had no choice.   And it worked.  Fewer people died.  And the Chinese economy is growing again.  If President Toxic had produced something similar, he would be re-elected.

I think where I differ with you the most is the idea that they are going to be persuaded about anything.  At least by you and me.  I'm more optimistic that they may persuade themselves.  And that will take time, and results.

It is possible to reverse engineer what got them to where they are today, I think.  Possible, but not easy.  

 

I posted that 12 minute video a bunch of times already.  Paul Lewis, the journalist, totally nailed it.  This was published in September 2016, when the polls were a toss up.  It was a true "Holy Shit" moment for me.  Everything you needed to know about why President Toxic could win, and did win, is in that video, thoughtfully articulated.

Krazy Racist Kathy is what got the headlines.  And smug liberals decided that messages like her's could not win.  Oops!

My feeling at the time, and still today, is that people didn't buy Krazy Racist Kathy's racism.  Which is not to say that there isn't racism in America just under the surface.  But people were clearly not trying to make a statement about how racist they are.  It was about the jobs.  As one organizer said, people understand they used to have an $80,000 a year job in a factory.  And now they understand they have two jobs that pay them $30,000.

The true "Holy Shit" moment for me was at 3:30 in that video.  This is about my biases as a former community organizer.  When you get to the point that people are having picnics, and singing folks songs about Donald The Hero, and Krazy Racist Kathy is holding the lyrics page, you are 97 % of the way there.  All this happened before President Toxic was elected.  It was building for years.  So he's the symptom.  Not the cause. 

How do you reverse engineer this?  it will have to happen organically - just like how they got to where they are.  They're not going to listen to a journalist from The Guardian.  Or California liberals.

Bernie tried to do what you are suggesting: give them something else to fear.  He gave them corporate greed, and a global capitalist oligarchy that puts profits over people.  It looked in 2016 like he might have persuaded a bunch of people in Michigan.  But that didn't hold up in 2020. 

I've read a bunch of articles that say, for whatever reason, class consciousness just does not cut it any more. So people agree that Jeff Bezos is a rich fat cat and he ought to pay wealth taxes.  But they didn't vote for Bernie or Warren, who were the ones proposing such things.  There's a theory that they were friendlier to Bernie than Elizabeth because he looked and sounded more like them.  All of these are riddles yet to be solved, I think.

None of this suggests to me that the core of President Toxic's base, the authoritarian followers, are going to be easily persuaded about anything.  I think they're going to grow older, and more bitter, and keep fighting.  If Trump loses, more likely than not ex-President Toxic will start a tv show and be a sort of resistance leader.

On some alternative Earth, what would work is to bring back those 5 million factory jobs lost while W. was President.  The picture that reverse engineers the images in the videos above is a Democratic picnic in 2024.  Maybe even one where the old White people and the Black church people picnic together.  And the folk song would go like this:

They said no one can do it.

But Joe Biden can.

The factory pays me 80 grand.

Joe Biden - he's my man!

Very simple and black and white.   But the hardest thing in the world to do.

Edited September 9, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[stevenkesslar]

I'm going to post a few other things that push around the margins of this issue.

First, just to prove I can tolerate ambiguity, here's a little something that pushes back against some of my own thinking:

‘What do we do?’: Trump gains rattle Miami Dems

The president is running ahead of his 2016 pace in Florida’s most populous county.

Quote

Otaola [an Obama to Trump Latino immigrant] told POLITICO that Trump is proving relatively popular with Latinos in the county because he is “synonymous with prosperity and success. We are tired of politicians who say the right thing and do the wrong thing. And we have changed to whoever speaks the wrong thing; but does the right thing.”

Evelyn Perez-Verdia, a Democratic political consultant and Spanish-language media commentator in South Florida, blamed much of Biden’s standing with Latino voters on a “massive disinformation campaign in Spanish in Florida.”

“I get WhatsApp videos from every single person I know calling Democrats socialists,” she said. “And they go into this dark side about how Democrats support things like ISIS. It’s totally crazy. They’re using fear and, unfortunately, fear can work.”

The socialism attack, which Florida Democrats say they ignored to their peril in 2018 elections, has particular salience among Cuban-Americans, but also is utilized to convince voters with roots in Venezuela, Colombia and Nicaragua.

That article allows you to make the authoritarian argument either way.  And both arguments would be correct.

On the one hand, some of President Toxic's support in Florida is NOT because people want to be authoritarian followers.  It's because they don't want to be.  If they left Cuba or Venezuela, it was to get away from oppressive and authoritarian regimes.  I don't have a hard time understanding why these voters would be attracted to Trump as a symbol of a self-made business success and American prosperity.  Even if they cut him some slack because Daddy made everything good for Baby Donald, who cares?

On the other hand, authoritarian followers are exactly the kind of people Dean is saying would buy this bullshit about socialism.  Biden is so NOT SOCIALIST that I frankly find it hard to believe Team Toxic is stupid enough to make such arguments.  I'm glad they are.  Because if they weren't screaming "Socialist witch!" at people like Harris, they could be making arguments that actually gain traction.   That said, it makes sense that if you left Cuba or Venezuela, this nightmare resonates in a way it just doesn't for White suburban women in Wisconsin.

The good news in this is that the articles about Biden and Florida, and Biden and Hispanics, may be more a localized issue than a national one.  There's probably multiple causes of whatever is happening in Florida.  But it does not appear to be happening in Arizona, where there are also lots of Hispanics.

I checked, and here is a comparison of the 538 polling average in four states from Aug. 28th to today.  I arbitrarily picked Aug. 28th because that's when the polling gap in Florida noticeably started to close:

Florida:  Biden leads + 2.8 today versus + 5.6 lead on 8/28, net loss of - 2.8 to Biden

Pennsylvania:  Biden leads + 5.1 today versus + 5.8 lead on 8/28, net loss of -0.7 to Biden

Wisconsin:  Biden leads + 7.0 today versus + 6.2 lead 8/28, net gain of +0.8 to Biden  (so much for racist ranting helping President Toxic)

Arizona:  Biden leads + 5.1 today versus + 4.3 lead 8/28, net gain of +0.8 to Biden

I'm tempted to say that whatever is going on in Florida is more likely local factors than national ones.  That said, he's got issues with Hispanics.  That's no surprise.

It's also noteworthy that he is doing as well in  Arizona as in Pennsylvania.  

Edited September 10, 2020 by stevenkesslar