Senate The 2016 U.S. Presidential Election has begun

I heard Cruz may defeat Trump in Iowa. I hope so. He would be easier to beat.

I just watched the video of Trump supporters beating that man in Alabama. Disgusting people...

 

That's what I mean. Trump is not the reason these people are following him. They are the reason he's doing as well as he is. There's a difference. That's also why the press takes shots at Trump and they seemingly bounce off. To his supporters, it's not about him. It's about what he represents and those who stand in opposition. That is more powerful and scary than one loudmouth business man with crazy ideas.

 

But, to Even's point, is any of this new or surprising? While they've not always been courted so directly, there's long been a substantial (but minority) fraction of the GOP that is made up of outright bigots. This is the same party that, within all our lifetimes, had former Grand Dragons of the KKK running as their gubernatorial candidate. But just as this group has always existed, it has also been largely irrelevant. They are a minority and their preferences are routinely over-ridden not only in the nation at large, but even among Republican officeholders. The relatively greater degree of damage does still come from more "moderate" but nonetheless pernicious officials who enact harmful policies.

 

Well yes and no. You're right in that the extremists have always been there. However, things can change. PEW Research had a poll out yesterday where people who thought of the government as "The Enemy" increased by around 10% more or less since 1996. It was still just around a fourth of respondents. But, think about that. 1 in 4 people actually consider the government as the enemy. It doesn't take a majority for a revolution. And it certainly doesn't take a majority to shift the center of gravity in a political party's base.

That's what Jello was getting at: party bases shift and change over time. It could happen here. What is "extreme" today could be considered a norm tomorrow. And those movements come from the ground up, not top down. Reagan was more a reflection of the mood of the majority of the polity at the time of his ascendance. He was less the creator of that mood than a reflection and messenger of it.

Trump, the man, is much less of a threat than what he represents. It's pretty sobering actually.

 

No, I don't think right-wing movements in the U.S. (or anywhere) tend to be grassroots. They're stoked by the elite (see: most Tea Party groups tended to be "astroturf" funded by corporations or wealthy individuals), and politicians such as Goldwater and Reagan played integral roles in moving politics rightward. And again, unlike Trump they were actually invested in the whole thing and in it for the long haul. I don't think you can divorce movements from the public figures at the forefront. Trump is sorely lacking in skill and political depth to build anything (and I seriously doubt he's at all interested in doing so).

 

And Democratic Party. Talkin' 'bout you, Black evangelicals...

Let's not pretend both sides have their strong supporters with questionable policy wishes...

 

Excuse me? What have Black evangelicals ever done that is on par with anything we've been discussing here?

 

Trump is riding a populist wave. I'm not saying you divorce movements from public figures, just more or less the amount of emphasis. You would place more on their influence while I would place less.

 

You need to pull that thread more. I'm not understanding what you're trying to say here.

 

The anti-gay, somewhat anti-abortion wing of the Democratic party? The people that campaigned for Prop 8? Yeah, that portion of the Democratic party.

Certainly, I don't think those are as toxic as basically Trump's entire platform, or what would happen under Presidents Rubio, Cruz, or Huckabee... but to deny our own tent has questionable faith-based tenets is a mistake.

Also, it should be noted: contrary to much of the Republican party supporters, the Black Evangelical wing of the Democratic party are willing to change their minds even as it challenges their faith, in the search of fairness for fellow human beings.

 

I'd push back fairly hard on that. Many black evangelicals privately oppose both things. They are perfectly welcome to, as it is for them a religious issue. Critically, though, there is no real movement amongst them to transform these doctrinal teachings into public policy. Most have emerged from either quietist traditions, or were involved in the civil rights movement, and maintain a portfolio of secular activism (food security, criminal justice reform, equal educational opportunities, etc). Comparing coincidental votes in a public referendum one never asked for to sustained, decades long campaigns of political activism is ludicrous.

The point is not to criticize people for opinions that you personally disagree with. We're talking about people that push toxic public policy options. Democratically-aligned Black Evangelicals don't really fit that bill at all.

 

There's an anti-gay wing of the democratic party? Not really a wing. Maybe a feather on a wing? And most of them are passive policy-wise when it comes to legislation that could be construed as anti-gay.

 

Yes, Prop 8 was clearly a trojan horse to get gay marriage allowed by SCOTUS...

 

Proposition 8 was authored by Republicans and backed by right wing (largely religious) groups. It was considered during a previously scheduled election people were already turning out for. While there, they voted in line with their known preferences, since they were asked directly. But they've never led a campaign to bring such a question under consideration in the first place. That's a pretty stark difference.

 

... which is not any different than your average Republican voter who won't go out and campaign for something, but if put in front of them would vote for it?

 

Erm, what? Moral Majority? Focus on the Family? Value Voters Summit? Family Research Council? Conservatives spend a huge amount of time and energy organizing around explicitly religious ideals and principles.

The equivalent among black Evangelicals is--there isn't one. At all. Even remotely.

 

Jesus, Wocky, those aren't even the people I'm comparing to.. I'm comparing apples to apples, you're comparing I, Robot to The Empire Strikes Back...

 

nixon was an interesting case. he tried hard to devolve power down to the states in several ways but also established major new federal agencies and declared the war on drugggzzzz. he abandoned the gold standard per friedman but also instituted wage and price controls. i imagine the noreastern elites didn't like him because they just...didn't like him! he was solitary and weird. and i suspect his more imperial gestures/actions ultimately stemmed from his control freak nature.

 

Prop 8 succeeded largely from support by republicans in CA, including substantial support from the LDS church and their rank and file.

How is that Democratic party?

 

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...assed-in-california-and-why-it-wouldnt-today/

You can find multiple articles similar to that in the immediate aftermath too...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2008/11/props_to_obama.html

For example...

 

Interesting. I knew the anti-illegal immigrant sentiment was high in those sectors but didn't think about that for the African Methodist Episcopalian/Baptist black folks.

 

Who are you comparing, exactly?

My point is that those groups exist on the right because there is an appetite for them among Evangelical whites. They take the attitude that the government is heinously wrong on moral issues, and therefore take it as a call to become active in politics and fix things. Black evangelicals, by contrast, largely agree that the government is heinously wrong, but largely don't care because its just a government anyway, and shouldn't be expected to have any meaningful/sensible input on moral issues. The appetite for these sorts of groups just don't exist. That's a huge, huge difference.

 

Yeah I don't see it. I can see some attitudes and some voting patterns but that's different than an entire political movement advocating policy and/or violence.

One is a mountain and the other is a mole hill.

 

Different topic!

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3e94...eck-most-gop-candidates-flunk-climate-science

 

Are there no Republican scientists?