Wakeup: Trump Doesn't Need a Majority

    Wakeup call: Hitler was named Chancellor after getting only 36% of the vote.

    Gottwald in Czechoslovakia pulled a coup 2 years after the Communists got 38% of the vote.

    Boris Johnson just led the UK out of the EU with only 43.6% of the vote.

    Bush claimed a "mandate" after losing with only 47.9% of the vote, going to the Supreme Court to rubber stamp the vote theft.

    Trump's Russian & other pals helped him "win" 3 Midwest states by super thin margins via voter repression & hacking, and then block the investigations.

    Relying on the 2020 results to throw Trump out? Don't.

    When a man shows you what he's made of, believe him.

    Trump doesn't need to "win" - he just needs to stay in power. His cronies will help him do exactly that.

    Danger, Will Robinson, Danger.

    Comments

    No no, I learned at Dagblog that you just have to energize the liberal base to do more "outreach" to drag more urban couch potatoes to the polls.


    That's called "freebase" - Richard Pryor, that great organizer and motivational speaker, popularized it some time ago. Really sets the crowd on fire.


    Hitler had a base of veterans who were pissed off at the results of WW1 and the Kaiser who surrendered. His cultural revolution brought children into his movement once the regime got started.

    Trump's base is a collection of special interests groups who understand they are toast if society becomes more progressive. Unlike the Fascist and Nazi movements, there is no format of the future, only a desire for the past. It is a powerful political tool in the context of the Trump team taking advantage of an ethos they do not share. But it is not an idea or the promise of a future.

    It is nothing.


    There are a lot of similarities but I think you sometimes err by getting way too invested in comparisons to Hitler and early-20th-century fascism. History never repeats itself exactly the same way.

    Trump's base is really all over the world. No different then the Taliban who just won't be dragged kicking and screaming into modern life, or nationalists wanting to maintain nations while globalism is already a given or ethnic tribalists wanting to revive and then retreat into their ancient traditions. Air travel, cell phones, people from across the globe marrying each other and having children: the new new world, they can't deal with it.

    It was a hard time for many people dealing with the industrial revolution too, ya know. Had to wait for all the old fogey people to die off, and some of em never did.


    To be clear for all, I referenced a Nazi, a Communist and a Euroskeptic quasi-populist.

    In short, I'm just arguing that severe regime change often happens with far less than majority backing.

    Allende won with 36.2% to 34.9% and 27.8% for his 2 opponents, yet next thing you know he's nationalizing tons of stuff and Castro's spending a *month* on a visit. Quite the mandate.


    BIG OOPS, I just realized my reply was to moat! and I was thinking about NCD because I was just over on his thread! And saw his Atlantic quote downthread and then confusing the two and who was saying what.

    And then you, PP, took it as me talking about you. I wasn't. I was talking to NCD, who wasn't here!

    Moat doesn't "do" Hitler the same as NCD, I know that.  And I did read your whole comment ,I was just mashing several comments together in my mindWhich goes to show ya: A.D.D.epidemic  =  one of the real downsides of the new new world we all have to learn to deal with.

    Mea culpas...(oh, continuing with the A.D.D., on that I just saw this--shouldn't use it no mo because Latin is western colonialist lingo, doh)

    Edit to add: Sorry to go too far off topic of the minority winning election for radical change. It is an important point and not too mention a personal pet peeve that some here don't seem to see that is what we can easily have with the system we have in this country as far as presidential election is concerned.


    No, I didn't think you were referring to me - just thought it the logical place to out my response.


    Dersh clenched it - "ends justify the means"

    Which amendment or Article is that? Doesn't matter.

    Or is it simply "might makes right" like with Christie?

    https://digbysblog.net/2020/02/raw-power-and-corruption-rule/


    Atlantic, October, 2018-

    ......Trump’s only true skill is the con; his only fundamental belief is that the United States is the birthright of straight, white, Christian men, and his only real, authentic pleasure is in cruelty. It is that cruelty, and the delight it brings them, that binds his most ardent supporters to him, in shared scorn for those they hate and fear: immigrants, black voters, feminists, and treasonous white men who empathize with any of those who would steal their birthright. The president’s ability to execute that cruelty through word and deed makes them euphoric. It makes them feel good, it makes them feel proud, it makes them feel happy, it makes them feel united. And as long as he makes them feel that way, they will let him get away with anything, no matter what it costs them.....



    Chairman of "The Democratic Coalition" asks a question for the attention of people like, er, Bernie-or-anybody-but Joe-Jolly Roger:

    .@BernieSanders and @AndrewYang — are either of you bothered by these poll results? If so, is there a message you’d like to send to your supporters RIGHT NOW?#VoteBlueNoMatterWho pic.twitter.com/cwYVjRGuIE

    — Jon Cooper (@joncoopertweets) February 1, 2020

     


    same from Joy Reid and Michael McFaul:


    Hope McFaul doesn't see this but this fanboy is clearly thinking of one individual:

    Suggests the possibility that the "hey you kids get off my lawn" ol' man thing may not be a bug, as is my worry, but a feature.


    Monica mans up - will others do what it takes?


    The next impeachment begins


    I am anxiously awaiting to see what the Dems do during the SOTU, like with the plot of an edge-of-your-seat movie. I think that what they do there will determine whether they could continue with prosecution like this to their benefit or not. Of course, in an ideal world, purely as a moral and legal thing and as to history and constitutional principle, they should do it. But I am talking political strategy, it's all going to be very interesting.


    Do like the Senate - let Trump speak, but no witnesses, no cameras.


    here's some opining on the SOTU:



    impt. cavaet, you can't trust the current approval ratings polls:

    Flagging this again: We're seeing very large differences in Trump's approval ratings by poll mode right now — perhaps the biggest of his presidency so far. We have some suggestive evidence that partisan non-response bias is artificially inflating his numbers in some phone polls. pic.twitter.com/H89RFXn47s

    — G. Elliott Morris (@gelliottmorris) February 5, 2020

    Tweeter knows his stuft: Data-driven journalist @TheEconomist. Mostly cover polls, elections & political science. Past @pewmethods @UTAustin

    then also his ratings went down on SOTU:

     


    Plus Vindman's brother was fired too, an amazing case if family retribution.


    Swings who know what high unemployment is like will think twice about voting against Trump even if they have come to hate him:




    Fox News latest poll going with your headline:


    Latest Comments