So, I gotta disagree that beating Trumpism consistently in national elections is the way to showing its vacuous-ness. It has lost the last three national elections ('16, '18, '20) and only gained power in one of them because of the unique construction of our electoral framework. It's never had popular majority support, it disgusts more A…
So, I gotta disagree that beating Trumpism consistently in national elections is the way to showing its vacuous-ness. It has lost the last three national elections ('16, '18, '20) and only gained power in one of them because of the unique construction of our electoral framework. It's never had popular majority support, it disgusts more Americans than it activates, and in four years it cost the GQP the House, the Senate, and the WH....and that STILL wasn't enough to break its hold. So lets stop acting like him losing in a primary or in '24 will make it go away, it's not. This is going to be a decade plus fight and we need to all realize that now
It didn't lose 2016, and it didn't really lose 2020. That's the problem. Trump, despite losing the popular vote in 2016, was elected president and the Republicans won both chambers of Congress. In 2020, Trump lost, but the Republicans gained seats in the House.
That's been enough to convince Republicans to keep tying themselves to Trump. It's going to take a crushing defeat to change their minds. If Democrats gain Senate seats this year, that might do it.
Honestly, I think the R's need to lose both chambers, and pick up more than 2 senate seats. If the House goes to the Republicans, and Ohio, Wisconsin, NC and Florida vote R in the Senate they'll just tell themselves that the candidates were the problem, and they will continue to be the MAGA party.
Are you saying buckle up and buckle down? That’s what I hear you saying and you’re right. I’m a diehard independent and have been for a couple of decades and my question is this: With my limited funds, I don’t know if it is better to support Liz or key Dems.
I’m not enamored with the far left any more than the far right and the both of them think all reasonable people should think the way they do, so I really am puzzling over this.
My honest view has come down to this: is the person I'm voting for going to be a threat to the Republic? I don't care what letter is by their name, it's as simple as are they/can they be someone who threatens the Republic. If not, and they have sane policies, vote for them. If they are...do everything you have to to stop them even if it means voting for people you otherwise would not
Well we’re on the same page. That’s how I evaluated most everything when voting in the primaries 1) are they a Trumper/election-denier and/or 2) do they speak of bipartisanship or do they only echo the most inflammatory partisan crapola?
Here in Pinellas County, Florida, all three Republican candidates for Tuesday's primary are vying to be the most Trumpish. "I'm the true Trump candidate!"; "No, "I'm the true Trump candidate!"; "No,..." Sounds a bit like they are trying to out-Monty Python Monty-Python's satire of Spartacus.
The joke will really be in the next two months if Trump's legal issues are serious enough to make all three scramble in the opposite direction.
I think it will take the kind of electoral drubbings that occurred in 1980-1992, when Democrats finally got the message and pivoted, to get rid of Trumpism. I read somewhere that a party has to have three consecutive presidential losses, as well as losing Congress, before they will accept the will of the voters and change their platforms so as to appeal to the majority.
To me it's alarming that when the extreme wing of either party gets beaten, they double down on whatever it was that got them beaten. The Bernie wing still doesn't accept that the majority of their fellow democrats liked another candidate better. The anti-abortion crowd in Kansas said after a 60/40 shellacking "we'll be back." It's like they have the attitude that they are entitled to electoral support.
The problem with your assessment is that the Dems didn't win in 1992 because of Clinton's policies. They won because Clinton had a once-in-a-generation charisma, and he was able to get the whole coalition working together in a way Carter and Mondale couldn't.
Hard disagree. Perot might have made it where Clinton won on plurality rather than majority, but because of the economy that year Bush 1 was always going to lose and the taxes he raised guaranteed it
Yes, they did. They spent the 80s getting destroyed because they were portrayed as being too liberal. Bill Clinton was the most obviously conservative Democrat the party nominated since the Depression. It’s actually to a point that it dragged Hillary down among lefties who took the totally-not-implicitly-sexist idea that she’d just be a Trojan horse for her husband, even though she was probably more liberal than McGovern or Mondale.
Then why did Clintonism fail to work for anyone who who didn't have Bill Clinton with them? If it was about his beliefs, why didn't those beliefs continue to resonate?
Democrats have two big problems with swing voters. Well, three, but two are self-inflicted. The first one is that they are explicitly race-conscious. Biden's up-front announcement that he would appoint a black woman to SCOTUS is an example. That creates a question in some voter's minds: is the appointee the best person for the seat at that particular time, or is she being appointed because she is black and has the right political views? Dems talk about race, ethnicity and sexual orientation as if it is relevant to the job--they tend to lead the candidate descriptions with 'the first woman," the first openly lesbian..." etc. It is annoying and counterproductive. They don't need to change who they nominate--but they should not add a candidates minority status to the list of reasons voters should support the candidate. When Republicans choose a minority, they just choose and let the choice speak for itself.
The second thing they do is let the progressive wing of the party push them around. The left wing of the Democratic party is simply not popular enough with the electorate to carry statewide or national races. I don't know why the forgive student loans crowd can't understand that when you are only 30% of the Dem coalition, you aren't going to get your way.
The third thing isn't self inflicted---it's the Fox and Facebook effect. The left doesn't have the equivalent media ecosystem. Some Dems get it and will engage with Fox, but a lot of them refuse to and that hurts them. Showing up on Fox where conservative voters can see your face, hear you talk, and assess you for themselves is really important.
Perhaps when nominating/electing women, ethnic & religious minorities, and LGBTQ people becomes so frequent that it's normal, we can stop saying "first woman," etc. But until then, it DOES MATTER when someone breaks those barriers - and it should be celebrated.
How many people voted for Obama because of his policies?
"When Republicans choose a minority, they just choose and let the choice speak for itself."
Other than the times they don't, like when Reagan promised to nominate the first female SC Justice during his first campaign. So many of the things people point to as stuff Democrats do "wrong" are actually just things that Democrats get flak for while Republicans get a pass.
There's long been a double standard with this kind of thing. Since probably the 70s, Dems are the expected "baseline" for conduct and behavior by the media while Republicans get plaudits for there "good choices" which aren't even a peep in a Dem admin.
Partly because the Clinton era saw the culmination of the GOP’s long project of using race and abortion as wedges to break up what was left of the New Deal coalition, and partly because the remainder of the Democratic base that didn’t outright switch parties was simply uncomfortable with how conservative Clinton was and didn’t embrace it. Bernie never could’ve attacked Obama as hard as he did from the left — the idea that Hillary was a Trojan horse for her husband (along with more than a few cherry picked video clips where she went along with his positions) was a major animating force behind the Bernie Bros in 2016. I, as a Clinton Democrat sitting out at the centrist edge of the current Dem base, was constantly having to remind the Bernie Bros I knew that Hillary isn’t Bill, and point out she was a lot more liberal than Bill. By most metrics on her Senate voting record, she was one of the most liberal Senators other than Bernie throughout her time there. More so than Obama.
Combination of the Republican parties deal with the devil with the Falwell's coming due, nativist backlash to immigration generally (let alone reform), changing economics generally, and a (general) national lack-of-purpose post Cold War where we had no other great "forcing function" pushing the nation one way or another. Just making money for the sake of making money is fun for a little while but people grow bored with it rapidly, which is why Clintonism had short coattails ultimately
Absolutely. While the Iraq war vote was the big issue that he used as a wedge against her, on most other issues he was coming at her from her right, especially on health care. The ACA far more greatly resembled her position in the primary than his own.
In this conversation, I think something rather significant is being ignored and that was Ross Perot. Clinton only won on a plurality and It strikes me that the Perot coalition has more to do with the Trumpist mentality than it does anything else.
From my point of recollection, I think that the low point for the democratic party as a whole was the Rainbow coalition period where the party could not agree on lunch. It's interesting to see how it evolved into Clinton's second term after the Gingrich attempts to derail him. The most amusing parts being the House attempts to get rid of him over sex scandals where republican after republican was forced to resign for the same stuff.
She’s not as liberal as Bernie/AOC. Those two are, by American standards, bordering on crazy. He can hold a Senate seat in Vermont and she can hold a D+30 House district fine, but either of them is DOA in a statewide election in… generously, 30 states. But the real daylight on positions between Bernie and Hillary in 2016 was a lot less than most Berniecrats thought. She’s less combative in her rhetoric than he is, but she was only less liberal than him in that she pragmatically proposes to meet progressive goals in a way that can actually pass Congress and work in real world implementation. Almost all of their actual goals only differ in degree.
Yup, being fiscally conservative is just lip service from the GOP. Too many voters are reckless spenders, racking up debt, and then cry when inflation or interest rates go up. What happened to all that stimulus money they received? They blew it on iphones, doordash, random crap, etc. The GOP hates taxes, and since "Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society" of course they're trying to tear it down. Uncivilized disobedience.
You can have simple but wrong solutions and answers to the world or right but complex ones. The former are rewarded far more often because they "feel good" or are "common sense" than the latter
Which is why Dems fumbling at the five yard line and letting the GOP run it back in 2016 was such a colossal historical fuck-up. The evidence was already there for the GOP to change after 2012, but instead they went the other way and here we are
Trumpism doesn't break until people like Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy see it as a threat to their jobs. Not their ability to gain power; their ability to win their own elections. Right now, they figure they can hold their jobs and wait him out. Until that changes, they keep doing what they're doing.
Completely agree. Until individual republicans see Trump as a threat to keeping their jobs, they'll stay complicit, directly or by their silence. They don't care about Trump. They care about power.
A good point. Him losing a primary may actually be counterproductive, because then Trumpism can run without the baggage of Trump.
I'm not for risking this in real life, but if I got to script the future, Trump runs as the republican nominee in 24 and gets crushed along with down-ballot impacts on other Republicans. That might not kill Trumpism, but it'd be a hell of a blow.
I'm not convinced trumpism can die, at least not till the Boomers die off (along with some of their milquetoast GenX supporters). Trump made their ignorance not only OK, but celebrated. People like that don't quietly go away easily
Trumpism is an authoritarian ideology, not a new one mind you, but resurrected and rebranded. I hate to call it "Trumpism" and give that dolt Trump any credit for it. He just recognized it simmering below the surface and gave it oxygen.
It didn't start with the boomers and won't die with the boomers or any generation, and there will always be some people that it appeals to as it ebb and flows throughout humanity. It's going to be a tough slog. It has risen to the highest office in our government and threatens to again. That's what is so scary this time.
"The fascism this time" is how I've heard some historians refer to it. The notes might change, but the music stays the same: reactionary, hypernationalist, and repressive
This is from after the election. There's a small difference in Trump support between 65+ and 50-64, but it isn't much. They've got you at 52% Trump, so generationally, not "pro-joe".
You overlooked Eva's distinction: "boomers without college degrees." Check the statistics on that difference again. Why are Trump Republicans taking such a biased view against education? Education does make a difference.
I made the point in a previous article that this anti-education bias is the 21st century fixation by the RW. Education - college - was encouraged by the government, federal (GI Bills) and states (state universities were often free to residents). And it was, in most cases, a rounded education in history, science, etc. (One point little known is that Hitler's plan for occupied Europe included the dumbing down of education to the bare minimum (6th grade, if memory serves me) and limiting higher education to the Aryans.) A massive side effect to the anti-tax movement was increasing tuition to ridiculous levels at the once free state schools. So, yeah, those rural folks who used to be able to go the state universities couldn't afford them.
There are lots of really bad effects of being reflexively anti-tax but by and large most of my conservative friends are. There’s a cottage industry even among the poor and middle-class to avoid paying taxes because the “they” in charge of all governments are bureaucratic idiots who will only squander any money given them.
While ironically those same people will also bitch & moan about poor roads, local schools, or slow response time by government to their demands. Geez, I wonder why!!!
The other ironic point is that they shovel billions/trillions into the military-industrial complex with very little of it benefiting them. Eisenhower was right on point - and it's been ignored by politicians on both sides.
Along with the cost increase (and possibly because of it) has also come what I suspect (no time to do the numbers) is a decrease in access to the premier (and even just good) schools.
Okay, I took a second to look at one example: Harvard. Took in 2,200 in 1982. Took in 1,980 in 2021.
That's just one example not keeping up with population growth, and I'm not 100% sure it fully translates to other prestigious or even well regarded schools, but I suspect it does. I don't think Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Stanford, Vanderbilt, etc. are keeping up with population levels. I definitely know it is a hell of a lot harder to get into some of those schools than it used to be. OSU used to require a pulse, now the average ACT is 31. When I was growing up in Ohio it was the fallback school anyone could get into. Now, not so much.
So to your point, a 'good' (or better) school is now much more expensive and harder to get into academically.
I'm not sure what a "good or better" school is. People can/do get very good education at state universities, including those in states like ND, etc. The mystique for Harvard frankly is hard to fathom when so many of the MAGAs come from those elite schools! And yes, all those state schools have become more expensive, thanks to cuts in state budgets.
A good or better school is to me, generally one of the ones you've heard of. That's a lazy mental shortcut, but I know damn well it goes on all the time. That isn't to say you can't get a good education at a school that isn't well known, but outside of various specialties, your odds are better (for employment opportunities) at an Ohio State, USC, Texas, Northwestern, Rutgers, etc., etc., than they are at Youngstown State, Zane State, Blufton, Ohio Northern, Slippery Rock, Wayne State, etc., etc.
I only used Harvard as an example of what is considered top flight not remotely keeping up with population growth.
I used the term 'good or better' to try and get past any notions of comparing schools at the large state schools and above. That Northwestern is a 'better' school than Ohio State or that Texas has a better environmental law program than Harvard (I have no idea) is beside the point I was trying to make.
The article I quoted, admittedly pre-election, differentiated between older boomers and younger boomers and those with/without college degrees. The Pew article doesn't and it doesn't overlap with college degrees. My point was all boomers are most definitely NOT Trump fans. And also, we are not dying off.
On the dying off part though, sure you are. Projections show 72M in 2019 and 64M in 2028. Silent is falling faster of course, but even GenX drops a million in that time frame. And of course, dying isn't the only thing that keeps people from voting. Unpleasant subject of course.
One point on dying - save for accidents or unforeseen pandemics - my life expectancy at age 70 (now) is 87 years. Which means that we're gonna be around for some time. :-)
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for you and others of your generation (which includes my parents) living on and on. But the statistical reality is that the boomer generation is going to be shrinking relative to all the others not named 'silent'. And that does have an impact on elections, other things held constant (which they usually aren't).
Giving you a fist pump, Eva. I’m 65 and recently retired. I’m glad I can now pour energy and money into matters that before I could only vote or write letters about. Of course, I’ll die before those younger than me but I sure can still make a difference. All the family in my generation (as well as those younger) are implacably anti-Trump.
James, please tone down the hatred, even if an idiot triggered your rage. The comment was deleted either by the poster or the moderator, so better angels prevail.
So, I gotta disagree that beating Trumpism consistently in national elections is the way to showing its vacuous-ness. It has lost the last three national elections ('16, '18, '20) and only gained power in one of them because of the unique construction of our electoral framework. It's never had popular majority support, it disgusts more Americans than it activates, and in four years it cost the GQP the House, the Senate, and the WH....and that STILL wasn't enough to break its hold. So lets stop acting like him losing in a primary or in '24 will make it go away, it's not. This is going to be a decade plus fight and we need to all realize that now
It didn't lose 2016, and it didn't really lose 2020. That's the problem. Trump, despite losing the popular vote in 2016, was elected president and the Republicans won both chambers of Congress. In 2020, Trump lost, but the Republicans gained seats in the House.
That's been enough to convince Republicans to keep tying themselves to Trump. It's going to take a crushing defeat to change their minds. If Democrats gain Senate seats this year, that might do it.
Honestly, I think the R's need to lose both chambers, and pick up more than 2 senate seats. If the House goes to the Republicans, and Ohio, Wisconsin, NC and Florida vote R in the Senate they'll just tell themselves that the candidates were the problem, and they will continue to be the MAGA party.
Bingo!
Are you saying buckle up and buckle down? That’s what I hear you saying and you’re right. I’m a diehard independent and have been for a couple of decades and my question is this: With my limited funds, I don’t know if it is better to support Liz or key Dems.
I’m not enamored with the far left any more than the far right and the both of them think all reasonable people should think the way they do, so I really am puzzling over this.
My honest view has come down to this: is the person I'm voting for going to be a threat to the Republic? I don't care what letter is by their name, it's as simple as are they/can they be someone who threatens the Republic. If not, and they have sane policies, vote for them. If they are...do everything you have to to stop them even if it means voting for people you otherwise would not
Well we’re on the same page. That’s how I evaluated most everything when voting in the primaries 1) are they a Trumper/election-denier and/or 2) do they speak of bipartisanship or do they only echo the most inflammatory partisan crapola?
sadly, if they have R next to them these days odds are they're both 1 & 2
Here in Pinellas County, Florida, all three Republican candidates for Tuesday's primary are vying to be the most Trumpish. "I'm the true Trump candidate!"; "No, "I'm the true Trump candidate!"; "No,..." Sounds a bit like they are trying to out-Monty Python Monty-Python's satire of Spartacus.
The joke will really be in the next two months if Trump's legal issues are serious enough to make all three scramble in the opposite direction.
That was sadly true. There was one R exception and I voted for him.
My reason for not voting for any Republican, even ones I like, is that Mitch and Kevin should never again wield a gavel in Congress.
I think it will take the kind of electoral drubbings that occurred in 1980-1992, when Democrats finally got the message and pivoted, to get rid of Trumpism. I read somewhere that a party has to have three consecutive presidential losses, as well as losing Congress, before they will accept the will of the voters and change their platforms so as to appeal to the majority.
To me it's alarming that when the extreme wing of either party gets beaten, they double down on whatever it was that got them beaten. The Bernie wing still doesn't accept that the majority of their fellow democrats liked another candidate better. The anti-abortion crowd in Kansas said after a 60/40 shellacking "we'll be back." It's like they have the attitude that they are entitled to electoral support.
The problem with your assessment is that the Dems didn't win in 1992 because of Clinton's policies. They won because Clinton had a once-in-a-generation charisma, and he was able to get the whole coalition working together in a way Carter and Mondale couldn't.
They won because Ross Perot took GOP votes.
Hard disagree. Perot might have made it where Clinton won on plurality rather than majority, but because of the economy that year Bush 1 was always going to lose and the taxes he raised guaranteed it
ok maybe a bit of both
I don't have actual numbers of votes
which should tell the tale
(back then they were all counted)
Yes, they did. They spent the 80s getting destroyed because they were portrayed as being too liberal. Bill Clinton was the most obviously conservative Democrat the party nominated since the Depression. It’s actually to a point that it dragged Hillary down among lefties who took the totally-not-implicitly-sexist idea that she’d just be a Trojan horse for her husband, even though she was probably more liberal than McGovern or Mondale.
Then why did Clintonism fail to work for anyone who who didn't have Bill Clinton with them? If it was about his beliefs, why didn't those beliefs continue to resonate?
Obama's policies were pretty Clintonian.
Democrats have two big problems with swing voters. Well, three, but two are self-inflicted. The first one is that they are explicitly race-conscious. Biden's up-front announcement that he would appoint a black woman to SCOTUS is an example. That creates a question in some voter's minds: is the appointee the best person for the seat at that particular time, or is she being appointed because she is black and has the right political views? Dems talk about race, ethnicity and sexual orientation as if it is relevant to the job--they tend to lead the candidate descriptions with 'the first woman," the first openly lesbian..." etc. It is annoying and counterproductive. They don't need to change who they nominate--but they should not add a candidates minority status to the list of reasons voters should support the candidate. When Republicans choose a minority, they just choose and let the choice speak for itself.
The second thing they do is let the progressive wing of the party push them around. The left wing of the Democratic party is simply not popular enough with the electorate to carry statewide or national races. I don't know why the forgive student loans crowd can't understand that when you are only 30% of the Dem coalition, you aren't going to get your way.
The third thing isn't self inflicted---it's the Fox and Facebook effect. The left doesn't have the equivalent media ecosystem. Some Dems get it and will engage with Fox, but a lot of them refuse to and that hurts them. Showing up on Fox where conservative voters can see your face, hear you talk, and assess you for themselves is really important.
Perhaps when nominating/electing women, ethnic & religious minorities, and LGBTQ people becomes so frequent that it's normal, we can stop saying "first woman," etc. But until then, it DOES MATTER when someone breaks those barriers - and it should be celebrated.
"Obama's policies were pretty Clintonian."
How many people voted for Obama because of his policies?
"When Republicans choose a minority, they just choose and let the choice speak for itself."
Other than the times they don't, like when Reagan promised to nominate the first female SC Justice during his first campaign. So many of the things people point to as stuff Democrats do "wrong" are actually just things that Democrats get flak for while Republicans get a pass.
There's long been a double standard with this kind of thing. Since probably the 70s, Dems are the expected "baseline" for conduct and behavior by the media while Republicans get plaudits for there "good choices" which aren't even a peep in a Dem admin.
Partly because the Clinton era saw the culmination of the GOP’s long project of using race and abortion as wedges to break up what was left of the New Deal coalition, and partly because the remainder of the Democratic base that didn’t outright switch parties was simply uncomfortable with how conservative Clinton was and didn’t embrace it. Bernie never could’ve attacked Obama as hard as he did from the left — the idea that Hillary was a Trojan horse for her husband (along with more than a few cherry picked video clips where she went along with his positions) was a major animating force behind the Bernie Bros in 2016. I, as a Clinton Democrat sitting out at the centrist edge of the current Dem base, was constantly having to remind the Bernie Bros I knew that Hillary isn’t Bill, and point out she was a lot more liberal than Bill. By most metrics on her Senate voting record, she was one of the most liberal Senators other than Bernie throughout her time there. More so than Obama.
Combination of the Republican parties deal with the devil with the Falwell's coming due, nativist backlash to immigration generally (let alone reform), changing economics generally, and a (general) national lack-of-purpose post Cold War where we had no other great "forcing function" pushing the nation one way or another. Just making money for the sake of making money is fun for a little while but people grow bored with it rapidly, which is why Clintonism had short coattails ultimately
Hillary was honestly probably left of even Obama
Absolutely. While the Iraq war vote was the big issue that he used as a wedge against her, on most other issues he was coming at her from her right, especially on health care. The ACA far more greatly resembled her position in the primary than his own.
In this conversation, I think something rather significant is being ignored and that was Ross Perot. Clinton only won on a plurality and It strikes me that the Perot coalition has more to do with the Trumpist mentality than it does anything else.
From my point of recollection, I think that the low point for the democratic party as a whole was the Rainbow coalition period where the party could not agree on lunch. It's interesting to see how it evolved into Clinton's second term after the Gingrich attempts to derail him. The most amusing parts being the House attempts to get rid of him over sex scandals where republican after republican was forced to resign for the same stuff.
What's still funny with it is despite that, they're both still well in the centrist to center-left space.
She’s not as liberal as Bernie/AOC. Those two are, by American standards, bordering on crazy. He can hold a Senate seat in Vermont and she can hold a D+30 House district fine, but either of them is DOA in a statewide election in… generously, 30 states. But the real daylight on positions between Bernie and Hillary in 2016 was a lot less than most Berniecrats thought. She’s less combative in her rhetoric than he is, but she was only less liberal than him in that she pragmatically proposes to meet progressive goals in a way that can actually pass Congress and work in real world implementation. Almost all of their actual goals only differ in degree.
"Read my lips: No new Taxes". Bush, Remember? It was fatal.
And the sad thing is Ol'Bush 1 was right to raise them at the time! But since when has being right ever been rewarded at the ballot box?
Yup, being fiscally conservative is just lip service from the GOP. Too many voters are reckless spenders, racking up debt, and then cry when inflation or interest rates go up. What happened to all that stimulus money they received? They blew it on iphones, doordash, random crap, etc. The GOP hates taxes, and since "Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society" of course they're trying to tear it down. Uncivilized disobedience.
Doing the right thing seems to be punished more often than rewarded.
You can have simple but wrong solutions and answers to the world or right but complex ones. The former are rewarded far more often because they "feel good" or are "common sense" than the latter
Exactly. Most often the feels are far more important than anything else.
Clinton's charisma helped, but Bush 1 was also dealt a bad economy which guaranteed his loss, Perot or not.
Which is why Dems fumbling at the five yard line and letting the GOP run it back in 2016 was such a colossal historical fuck-up. The evidence was already there for the GOP to change after 2012, but instead they went the other way and here we are
Yeah. The GOP did their infamous post 2012 autopsy and promptly threw it out for an elevator conman.
It wasn't so much of an autopsy as a remake of "Re-Animator."
Trumpism doesn't break until people like Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy see it as a threat to their jobs. Not their ability to gain power; their ability to win their own elections. Right now, they figure they can hold their jobs and wait him out. Until that changes, they keep doing what they're doing.
By the time they realize that...it will be too late.
Completely agree. Until individual republicans see Trump as a threat to keeping their jobs, they'll stay complicit, directly or by their silence. They don't care about Trump. They care about power.
Ironically, it might be the SC that is the threat to some of their jobs.
A good point. Him losing a primary may actually be counterproductive, because then Trumpism can run without the baggage of Trump.
I'm not for risking this in real life, but if I got to script the future, Trump runs as the republican nominee in 24 and gets crushed along with down-ballot impacts on other Republicans. That might not kill Trumpism, but it'd be a hell of a blow.
I'm not convinced trumpism can die, at least not till the Boomers die off (along with some of their milquetoast GenX supporters). Trump made their ignorance not only OK, but celebrated. People like that don't quietly go away easily
Trumpism is an authoritarian ideology, not a new one mind you, but resurrected and rebranded. I hate to call it "Trumpism" and give that dolt Trump any credit for it. He just recognized it simmering below the surface and gave it oxygen.
It didn't start with the boomers and won't die with the boomers or any generation, and there will always be some people that it appeals to as it ebb and flows throughout humanity. It's going to be a tough slog. It has risen to the highest office in our government and threatens to again. That's what is so scary this time.
"The fascism this time" is how I've heard some historians refer to it. The notes might change, but the music stays the same: reactionary, hypernationalist, and repressive
Stop blaming all boomers. It's the middle-aged boomers without college degrees, the ones born in the 60s who are Trump's Pets. Us older ones are pro-Joe. See https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/08/senior-citizens-trump-biden-2020-voters-428131
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-bidens-2020-victory/
This is from after the election. There's a small difference in Trump support between 65+ and 50-64, but it isn't much. They've got you at 52% Trump, so generationally, not "pro-joe".
You overlooked Eva's distinction: "boomers without college degrees." Check the statistics on that difference again. Why are Trump Republicans taking such a biased view against education? Education does make a difference.
I made the point in a previous article that this anti-education bias is the 21st century fixation by the RW. Education - college - was encouraged by the government, federal (GI Bills) and states (state universities were often free to residents). And it was, in most cases, a rounded education in history, science, etc. (One point little known is that Hitler's plan for occupied Europe included the dumbing down of education to the bare minimum (6th grade, if memory serves me) and limiting higher education to the Aryans.) A massive side effect to the anti-tax movement was increasing tuition to ridiculous levels at the once free state schools. So, yeah, those rural folks who used to be able to go the state universities couldn't afford them.
There are lots of really bad effects of being reflexively anti-tax but by and large most of my conservative friends are. There’s a cottage industry even among the poor and middle-class to avoid paying taxes because the “they” in charge of all governments are bureaucratic idiots who will only squander any money given them.
While ironically those same people will also bitch & moan about poor roads, local schools, or slow response time by government to their demands. Geez, I wonder why!!!
The other ironic point is that they shovel billions/trillions into the military-industrial complex with very little of it benefiting them. Eisenhower was right on point - and it's been ignored by politicians on both sides.
And also support taxbreaks for millionaires and billionaires despite the fact the vast, vast majority of them never will be ones themselves
Along with the cost increase (and possibly because of it) has also come what I suspect (no time to do the numbers) is a decrease in access to the premier (and even just good) schools.
Okay, I took a second to look at one example: Harvard. Took in 2,200 in 1982. Took in 1,980 in 2021.
That's just one example not keeping up with population growth, and I'm not 100% sure it fully translates to other prestigious or even well regarded schools, but I suspect it does. I don't think Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Stanford, Vanderbilt, etc. are keeping up with population levels. I definitely know it is a hell of a lot harder to get into some of those schools than it used to be. OSU used to require a pulse, now the average ACT is 31. When I was growing up in Ohio it was the fallback school anyone could get into. Now, not so much.
So to your point, a 'good' (or better) school is now much more expensive and harder to get into academically.
I'm not sure what a "good or better" school is. People can/do get very good education at state universities, including those in states like ND, etc. The mystique for Harvard frankly is hard to fathom when so many of the MAGAs come from those elite schools! And yes, all those state schools have become more expensive, thanks to cuts in state budgets.
A good or better school is to me, generally one of the ones you've heard of. That's a lazy mental shortcut, but I know damn well it goes on all the time. That isn't to say you can't get a good education at a school that isn't well known, but outside of various specialties, your odds are better (for employment opportunities) at an Ohio State, USC, Texas, Northwestern, Rutgers, etc., etc., than they are at Youngstown State, Zane State, Blufton, Ohio Northern, Slippery Rock, Wayne State, etc., etc.
I only used Harvard as an example of what is considered top flight not remotely keeping up with population growth.
I used the term 'good or better' to try and get past any notions of comparing schools at the large state schools and above. That Northwestern is a 'better' school than Ohio State or that Texas has a better environmental law program than Harvard (I have no idea) is beside the point I was trying to make.
The article I quoted, admittedly pre-election, differentiated between older boomers and younger boomers and those with/without college degrees. The Pew article doesn't and it doesn't overlap with college degrees. My point was all boomers are most definitely NOT Trump fans. And also, we are not dying off.
Understood on the educational part.
On the dying off part though, sure you are. Projections show 72M in 2019 and 64M in 2028. Silent is falling faster of course, but even GenX drops a million in that time frame. And of course, dying isn't the only thing that keeps people from voting. Unpleasant subject of course.
One point on dying - save for accidents or unforeseen pandemics - my life expectancy at age 70 (now) is 87 years. Which means that we're gonna be around for some time. :-)
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for you and others of your generation (which includes my parents) living on and on. But the statistical reality is that the boomer generation is going to be shrinking relative to all the others not named 'silent'. And that does have an impact on elections, other things held constant (which they usually aren't).
Giving you a fist pump, Eva. I’m 65 and recently retired. I’m glad I can now pour energy and money into matters that before I could only vote or write letters about. Of course, I’ll die before those younger than me but I sure can still make a difference. All the family in my generation (as well as those younger) are implacably anti-Trump.
Reactions like this are exactly why every other generation can't fracking stand Boomers
James, please tone down the hatred, even if an idiot triggered your rage. The comment was deleted either by the poster or the moderator, so better angels prevail.