The "Unnecessariat" and the rise of Trumpism.

[pbrower2a]

(05-22-2019, 03:07 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-22-2019, 08:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-16-2019, 02:51 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-16-2019, 03:14 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: … I also watch the meme magic flow on the internets.  To understand why Daddy is president one has to understand the flow of meme magic.  Without that: one is a blind man, in a dark room, looking for a black cat that isn't there and proclaiming that they found it.

Meme magic is an oxymoron.  Memes only have power over those fully invested in them, which makes the 'magic' part a non sequitur.  FWIW, a very large part of Trump's nominal base is already bailing on him as a candidate for 2020, because he finally added one too many insults to the pile of inflicted injuries.  They've had enough.

Memetics works the same way as a force of nature works.  I don't have to believe in rain for it to rain.  The 'magic' part is merely a shorthand for the natural flow of information in the form of memes.  Which is the way information is transfered from person to person naturally.

As for Trump losing his base, I'm interested in hearing where you found that particular bit of fake news.
 
Aggrigate totals are still in the mid-40s which shows his hard support hasn't lessened.  The Democrats have to errode his soft support which means they have to run Biden and Daddy can easily beat Creepy Uncle Joe.

I doubt we'll see a second round of DJT, unless the Dems do something incredibly stupid.  The Senate and House are both open questions.

Interesting fact: a professor who has an economic model for predicting elections accurately has Trump winning at 56+%.  We'll see how that plays.

The last three Presidents who sought re-election won; three of the last four; four of the last five; four of the last six; five of the last seven (I am not counting Ford or LBJ as they were successors through the Vice-Presidency), and six of the last eight (which rejects Truman as a successor through the Vice-Presidency, and I cannot figure how to deal with FDR) got re-elected.  That model gives a 75% chance to Trump.

OK, so this includes  Presidents who got elected the first time just barely (Dubya, Trump, arguably Kennedy) and some that got elected the first time with 360 or more electoral votes. So rule out Obama, Clinton, the elder Bush, Reagan, and Eisenhower, and we have two of three Presidents elected with fewer than 315 electoral votes winning re-election. That of course has too small a sample size for drawing conclusions.

Economic model? Donald Trump's problems in polling have nothing to do with economics. If Donald Trump can convince enough people that a vote against him is a vote for a reprise of the Great Depression, then he wins. This said, economic stewardship did not give Obama a blow-out re-election in 2016. This also said, most people so identify with their economic position that they would support a fascist dictatorship complete with torture chambers and killing pits if it meant that they could get well paid for steady work without heavy lifting or having to create a business the hard way. (Unpleasant as it is to say, we would be a far better people if we had to experience something like the 1929-1932 economic meltdown and had to experience some economic humbling. We would see a rediscovery of small business to fit -- with much personal hardship -- niches opening as corporate behemoths loaded with bureaucratic elitists better at grabbing income than at serving customers implode).

I see a pattern in American history -- that unless a politician is a bailiwick of such extreme polarization that an opponent has absolutely no chance of winning, no politician gets away with the image of severe, pervasive, or blatant corruption. Corruption, in my opinion, will take President Trump down.