P T Barnum for Prez
2/10/18 10:19![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
johnny9fingers posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsNow I suggest parallels between P T Barnum and Donald Trump seem to draw some appropriate comparisons.
He's had a fair few successes of late has 45. Renegotiation of NAFTA despite the Steel tariffs has given him a definite win. While it's not quite the same as getting Igor Stravinsky to write you a ballet for 50 elephants it does show that Trump is not entirely without some point to his bluster.
And, I suggest, that this is the sort of thing both his base and the undecided voters will re-elect him for. He really is going to be President Alzheimer the second, to reusehalialkers' term for Ronald Reagan. How the rest of us cope with the second term is another matter.
When your political analysts can cherry-pick your policies to appeal to both specific audiences and a broader demographic, traditional party lines of left and right have broken down. Many of Trump's policies are directly in response to swing-state issues, as is sensible; but as policies they appear to transcend the conventional Left/Right polarisation that two-party states often fall into. For example protectionism is more of a Bernie-like policy than a Republican free-trade one. But it is gaining traction as we finally get around to understanding what the crash did to the post-'80's economic and political consensus.
If the Dems really want power, and to play equally on a very dirty and muddy playing surface, they need the opportunity to go for 45's impeachment in his third year. They need both houses for that. The midterms are probably the most important thing for them - and they are not going to win by enough to get what they want. The Donald will be in power for another term unless he has a stroke.
In the space of four years, the Dems have lost America for the next two decades. They have lost SCOTUS, they have lost the presidency to a mountebank; and furthermore a mountebank who, for all of his bluster and braggadocio, has managed to achieve a few things despite his obvious personal deficiencies.
Anyway, given all of this, which celebrity could the Dems bring in to run to counter such a P T Barnum-like figure? Or should they go for a career politician of gravitas and intelligence?
He's had a fair few successes of late has 45. Renegotiation of NAFTA despite the Steel tariffs has given him a definite win. While it's not quite the same as getting Igor Stravinsky to write you a ballet for 50 elephants it does show that Trump is not entirely without some point to his bluster.
And, I suggest, that this is the sort of thing both his base and the undecided voters will re-elect him for. He really is going to be President Alzheimer the second, to reuse
halialkers' term for Ronald Reagan. How the rest of us cope with the second term is another matter.When your political analysts can cherry-pick your policies to appeal to both specific audiences and a broader demographic, traditional party lines of left and right have broken down. Many of Trump's policies are directly in response to swing-state issues, as is sensible; but as policies they appear to transcend the conventional Left/Right polarisation that two-party states often fall into. For example protectionism is more of a Bernie-like policy than a Republican free-trade one. But it is gaining traction as we finally get around to understanding what the crash did to the post-'80's economic and political consensus.
If the Dems really want power, and to play equally on a very dirty and muddy playing surface, they need the opportunity to go for 45's impeachment in his third year. They need both houses for that. The midterms are probably the most important thing for them - and they are not going to win by enough to get what they want. The Donald will be in power for another term unless he has a stroke.
In the space of four years, the Dems have lost America for the next two decades. They have lost SCOTUS, they have lost the presidency to a mountebank; and furthermore a mountebank who, for all of his bluster and braggadocio, has managed to achieve a few things despite his obvious personal deficiencies.
Anyway, given all of this, which celebrity could the Dems bring in to run to counter such a P T Barnum-like figure? Or should they go for a career politician of gravitas and intelligence?
(no subject)
Date: 2/10/18 10:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/10/18 10:46 (UTC)The narrative has changed, we have to keep track. And it is the other things which will happen while we are distracted which I worry about. On big news days I always try to look at what other news might have been released simultaneously in order to get buried in the rolling news coverage.
Putting Biden up against Trump is putting a charisma-light and boring person against the biggest, most ludicrous cartoon of Uncle Scrooge McDuck playing POTUS, and then inviting your Disney-worshipping audience to vote on which they want to see more of. Think of it as a reality game where one has to be ejected; which is more fascinating to watch, honestly? Which gets saved and which gets chucked out of the balloon - and don't forget, it's a popular vote... Of Americans.
(no subject)
Date: 2/10/18 19:18 (UTC)Reversing elections because the losing side throws a big enough temper tantrum isn't a slope we need to slide down, and I think (or maybe just hope) that most - regardless of political leanings - understand that.
I think the Dems are testing Beto out on the country - there is no other explanation for the effort they're putting into him (unless they really think he has a chance). I'm three states away, not a Democrat, and I get donation-soliciting-emails from him every day. I don't know anything about his personality, and I haven't heard him talk enough to judge his mic skills - but if he makes a good showing next month, he'll be on the short list for the next 'chosen one'.
As for celebrities - Oprah is the only hypothetical name put forward that Trump couldn't immediately push around as 'out-of-touch'. She may even be nickname-proof. While she denies interest, that could be a trick - no good could come from her putting her name in the hat this early.
(no subject)
Date: 3/10/18 00:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/10/18 00:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/10/18 00:11 (UTC)Oprah is a rational celebrity choice if she will stand. Big if. I don't think she wants the job, but I didn't think that Trump really wanted the job either. What do I know? But surely it would send the South into a re-enactment of the Civil War; after all she is a woman, like Hillary, and Black, like Obama.