mtutiger

I don't know the answer, but I can tell you that I interact with people from a variety of backgrounds in my day-to-day life and much of the ugliness we see online largely doesn't exist. It leads me to believe that, to an extent, relentless drumbeat of malaise and impending doom is something we (collectively) do to ourselves by going online and engaging.

You're going WAY back here, but I'm even thinking to some of the dooming we saw a few years ago about Trump simply ignoring election results and the 2022 Midterms and possible SOS candidates who could mess with results in individual states (luckily, all those candidates lost in the competitive states). And yeah, I still think some of that is over the top. But why there's this constant need to look for other meanings versus just judging the content for what it is, it feels like a lot of the same "take him seriously but not literally" stuff we've heard for years. And the same stuff that, often times, has been wrong. January 6th was the one that really changed my views a lot there.... I was pretty sanguine going into that day, I didn't think that would happen. Most people didn't think that it would happen. And it did anyway.... despite that, we continue to just write off words as if they don't have meaning.

So two near brawls in Congress today?

Definitely part of it..... of course, some of the GOP's gains in rural areas in the Midwest can also be explainable due outward migration as well.

Yeah, I think the actual election results on last Tuesday are pretty instructive there. Particularly in Pennsylvania (which is a pretty important state in Presidential politics, last I checked), where the GOP got absolutely routed in the Supreme Court election and downballot. And while I know that the Presidential election will feature a different electorate than the one that voted on 11/7, I don't think the margin there is only explainable because of differential turnout; it's a factor, but PA is a state with partisan voter registration and the GOP had an edge in turnout on 11/7. And still lost pretty sizably. (Which is an example of why persuasion matters).

I don't consider my position to be alarmist at all, FWIW. I actually don't even think my viewpoint has changed much from times on this board when I've argued positions that seem less alarmist. My thing is that I'm just going to judge content for what it is and not engage in parsing it or explaining it away as "Trump being Trump" or some stuff.

Honestly it should be a point of pride that someone with Benetti's profile and national stature decided to come here, and the idea of him calling games nationally is a sacrifice that is totally worth making considering the alternative. The other takeaway is that it kinda confirms my view that people outside of this organization, especially since Harris took over, generally take a much less dim view of the overall state of the org than the Tiger fanbase does.

High interest rates are a big part of the story right now and are influencing perceptions as well.

That DNA takes a really long time to shed too.... it basically took the Southern Strategy for Democrats to start losing the FDR/New Deal DNA in the south, but even that was a slow burn. The suburbs have become more hostile to the GOP in recent years, but that has also been something that has happened over time. To put into context, we've internalized a lot how bad suburbs have become for Donald Trump, particularly in the northern United States, but prior to 2008: Chester County PA (which Biden won 57-41 in 2020) voted once for a Democratic candidate between 1916 and 2008 (Johnson 1964) Kent County MI (Biden 52-46) voted three times for a Democratic candidate between 1888 and 2008 (1916, 1936, 1964) Kane and Dupage Counties in IL (Biden 56-42 and 57-41 respectively) NEVER voted for a Democrat in the 20th Century Trends exist, but often I think people expect stuff to happen overnight and it doesn't because people are conditioned to vote the way they always have. Or that you vote or participate the way everyone always has because that's the way to get ahead wherever you live (which is definitely the case in the county I grew up in). Either way, it happens in drips and drabs.

I know people in real life who, despite the pretty obvious inevitability of a Biden v Trump match-up to anyone following more closely, don't actually think either will be the nominee of their respective parties. This seems important to understanding the moment IMO. And your last point is key... elections are trench warfare in this country, nobody expects mass defections from Trump over one single event. But elections are fought on the margins, and yeah, persuasion is necessary and critical to winning.

In the macro, it's why polling this far out may not be the most predictive and, despite views that votes cannot move with events, they can. People just aren't all that tuned in right now... but that will change

And Bannon and Miller? They'll likely be the ones in government and making policy during a Second Trump term. Definitely nothing to be concerned about! Everything is great

If you don't like how I post, feel free to not engage

Who said anything about them? That is how your response cimes across We'll leave it there... the content speaks for itself.

"Take him seriously, not literally". Still going strong after all these years lol

My point is that the content speaks for itself. Arguing "why" is pedantic

We'll just have to disagree with this one. And I certainly hope anyone involved in Biden's campaign doesn't approach their roles with this outlook.

You aren't even addressing my point. Oh well, carry on with the nihilism.

I dont see why it matters one way or another why it was used.

I still believe persuasion matters in elections. Last Tuesday is a good example. And turnout and consolidating support matters too. If Trump reminds one voter on the fence about staying home of why they have to vote against him, that's good in my book. Either way, it's a long campaign and most people aren't thinking about this stuff. Scary as it is, I don't think any of these statements are beneficial to Trump at all politically in the long run.

The thing is, when Trump is talking about "vermin", it's not hard to think he's talking about everyone who isn't in his tent. In that way, I think it's a lot like the Clinton gaffe, almost the inverse of her gaffe, even though it will never get the same media treatment.

I think what needs to be recognized is that, even though he delineates between various groups (ie. Communists, Marxists, etc), what he really means is everyone who is opposed to HIM. Even if Lee is right insofar that he is saying (which oddly enough tracks with dictators of the past) is accidental (and I don’t), it really doesn't make it any less abhorrent or unacceptable. And just explaining that away as "Trump being Trump" kinda speaks volumes with where we are as a country.

Just incredible

Political ads are a big part of campaigns, always have been. And stuff like this will be in the can.