It’s back to being a great November

[crazed_hoosier2]

The interesting topic being, do the MAGA Pubs today resemble the conservative Taft supporters of yester year in terms of being anti-progressives, anti government spending, somewhat isolationist, etc.?

In some ways, certainly. The primary reason Ike ran is because of his opposition to Taft’s non-interventionist foreign policy - which Ike saw as dangerous as the Cold War was heating up. In retrospect, one might say Vietnam had its roots in the outcome of the 1952 election - as things there really got their start during Ike’s presidency.

But it’s also true that the notorious Operation Wetback occurred during the Eisenhower Administration - although it was largely motivated by Mexican appeals. And that’s more of the Trump view than the Bush view.

Taft wasn’t really all that conservative on welfare state spending, though. Really, almost nobody prominent was at that time - not until Goldwater came onto the scene. Given the stark contrast between Goldwater’s and LBJ’s visions of America, combined with the landslide outcome, it’s not hard to understand why so many politicians were wary of that.

At the time, most people subscribed to some degree to the view that government social spending had no diminishing marginal utility.

 

[cosmickid]

Cos, your bringing up the Stevenson v. Eisenhower 1952 election along with today's emphasis on primaries v. party conventions brings up an interesting conversation in my view.

The 1952 Republican convention was a close battle between conservative Robert Taft and the popular WWII hero Dwight Eisenhower.

The interesting topic being, do the MAGA Pubs today resemble the conservative Taft supporters of yester year in terms of being anti-progressives, anti government spending, somewhat isolationist, etc.?

I'd love to engage you on this,but it was three years prior to my birthdate and just not a subject I've done much resarch into. The extent I know of Eisenhower's political focus, beyond the fact that he was nearly as popular as FDR with voters on both sides of the aisle, is that growing up one of my cousins who had a light blond nearly white burr haircut was nicknamed "Ike"...

My guess is that Taft Pubs and MAGA have a lot in common when it comes to being anti-progress. Don't know if they presented as deep a conundrum as MAGA folks who "hate Govt" and yet want to BE the Govt. The latest head turner for me is how MAGA politicians who consistently vote against funding for FEMA and some of the other agencies deeply involved in the rescue efforts in NC and GA can with a straight face attack FEMA for "not doing enough". I'd also point out that Project 2025 contains measures/recommendations that would severely curtail FEMA and their budget...

It's such a strange coincidence how Trump lists all of the states where the Govt is doing a "great job" calls out those state governments for special phrase and then attacks Cooper. Trump has a history with Cooper since it was post Irma that Trump restricted and refused to approve most of the dister aid Cooper requested. And just this week, former Trump officials have revealed that Trump wanted to refuse aid to fight wildfire relief in CA, till his advisors pointed out that Orange Co was heavily GOP...

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/03/helene-trump-politics-natural-disaster-00182419

 

[cosmickid]

View embedded media

Some of you need to call your limp wrist liberal buddies and cat lady friends, you’re falling behind. Let’s go Dream Team!

I think the distinction he makes here about betting markets relecting how people who are interested in betting on political races feel rings pretty true.

 

[cosmickid]

I'll do my best Dbm and proclaim that the party is over.

 

[All4You]

So when Stevenson was the Dem nominee in 1952 (only 3 yrs before I was born) was he "dropped off at the top of the mountain" ? Primary voters in 12 of 15 primaries (barely 1/4 of states even had Primaries) chose Kefauver. Stevenson didn't even run. And yet Kefauver was unable to secure the majority of delegates needed for the nomination on 2 convention ballots. At that point Stevenson's name was thrown into the mix, and emerged as the party's nominee...

Notice how that's only 70 or so years ago, and how the primary process only involved a minority of actual voters? Here's another thing about primaries,the average voter doesn't participate.. When I went to the Elections board and offered my services they didn't know what camp to put me in because I hadn't ever voted in a primary. Me the person who many on this board consider a raging Dem had never voted in a Dem Primary even though I have identified as a Dem since Nixon/Watergate.

Now whether or not I chose to exercise my right to join the minority and vote in a primary, I always had the choice to vote for my party's nominee, or the other party or just not vote. After voting for Clinton twice I did not vote in 2000. Nothing against Gore, I wanted him to win. But I just didn't vote for whatever reason. I couldn't even tell you who participated in the Dem primary (without looking it up) because I just wasn't that interested in voting in Indiana. So any idiotic Dems that decide that KH is not the legitimate nominee have the ability to vote or not vote, or even to vote for Trump.

But to claim that somehow people were disenfranchised because (like every POTUS candidate before 1916) Harris didn't run in primaries, seems pretty ludicrous if you have a basic comprehension of US electoral history. The primary system originated with Progressives around 1916, so I guess the fact that I'm not enamored with the Primary system makes me anti-Progressive? I just don't get fired up about voting in the "dress rehearsal". And primaries, because they cater to the most radical elements of both parties, actually can cause more harm than good.

No offense, but whenever I see potential Trump voters raise this issue I envision someone who is trying to justify to their conscious their own willingness to vote for a convicted felon, twice impeached insurrectionist, adjudicated sexual abuser and serial fraudster. I have no doubt that as a whole the citizenry will reject that notion, and feel pretty confidant that will be true in the swing states as well. But we won't know till November...

Your GWOT suggesting otherwise notwithstanding, I have no problems with my conscience and need no justification for my vote. I will cast my vote for Donald Trump and sleep like a baby afterwards with absolutely zero regret. After (and against both my first inclination of TL;DR and my better judgement) reading this diatribe, I would posit just the opposite, that it's you seeking some sort of justification or conscience cleansing for your impending Harris vote...good luck with that and good day sir.

 

[snarlcakes]

I think the distinction he makes here about betting markets relecting how people who are interested in betting on political races feel rings pretty true.

View embedded media

The size of the market matters. I disagree with the rest of his conclusions. I hopped on and bet Harris to win Michigan because I thought it was good value.