Political Current Events March 3-4 | SOTU Address

[nycfan]

CNN made clear that their poll heavily skewed Republican because of who was watching the SOTU. Not sure about CBS but they limited to people watching (which is how it has been done in the age of extreme partisanship).



The CBS poll last night was very similar to the 2018 SOTU:



The CNN poll had some underlying negative data for Trump based on the baseline of “very positive” respondents (which has been dropping generally for years apparently):



Query whether this should be treated as / compared to a first speech to Congress, however?

 

[CFordUNC]

Sounds about right for you. copy dook

*Duke

 

[ZenMode]

How do you know they won't move the needle? People either didn't know or didn't understand the tariffs.

I predict that the economic downturn Trump has created all by himself will in fact move the needle with voters. That is a major difference between the parties. This isn't one of those situations where the economy went down, and the other side tries to pin it on the administration. This is the story:

1. Trump says he will round up immigrants and put in tariffs.
2. Liberals and economists said this will cause inflation and lower GDP
3. It lowered GDP and raised inflation, as predicted.
4. Trump didn't promise to hatchet the federal government, but he did. The entirely predictable effect of causing a substantial downturn appears to be happening.

This is an acute policy difference over specific issues. The problem for you, of course, is that you don't like it when people like me are right.

Again, my point is that both Dems and Reps focus on social issues because there really isn't (or wasn't) a needle-moving issue that differentiated the two parties outside of social issues.

I also mentioned it earlier.... I don't think tariffs moved the needle in 2024. For the average voter, tariffs are a fairly new variable. They could move the needle in 2028. That would be a non-social issue that differentiates the two parties and moves the needle.

 

[bassydude77]

I am a little confused as to why the Dems, for the most part, didn't stand for the cancer kid. Clearly used as a prop, but just terrible optics. I've been looking for a response from someone in Congress as to the reason, but haven't seen anything. Just seemed like an odd position to take and gives Trumpers a perfect opporutnity to remind everyone how "evil" Dems truly are.

 

[Icky Mettle]

"But you see, it’s not really that way. It’s just that Pubs focus so hard on the “fringe things” and won’t shut the F up about them. They’re obsessed."

If you take away social issues, what do Democrats and Republicans really disagree about that is going to move the needle? The tax rate on the richest people? Do we spend ridiculous or only semi-ridiculous money on the military? Will this year's deficit be over/under $1 trillion?

Democrats tried to pound on abortion rights (generally viewed as a social issue) because they believed it was a winning strategy. Republicans are doing that same in regard to social topics where they believe they have an advantage....which they probably do in many cases.

First of all, there’s nothing “fringe” about the abortion issue. Overturning Roe v. Wade was at the forefront of the Republican platform for nearly 50 years. And as a result, protecting Roe v. Wade was at the forefront of the Democratic platform for that period of time. It was a big issue on both sides of the aisle; not fringe. When Roe v. Wade was overturned by Dobbs in 2022, it set into motion laws that either banned or put significant restrictions on abortion. Democrats continued to focus on protecting abortion rights. Their position on that particular issue is more popular than not, even if it didn’t end up being the deciding issue in many races. But that wasn’t a case of Dems focusing on a fringe matter and taking an unpopular stance, which the poster I respond was accusing the Dems of doing.

As for your comment about Republicans focusing on the social topics where they feel they have an advantage, that wasn’t at all what the poster I responded to was talking about. And in fact, you are essentially echoing the point I was making. The poster I responded to accused the Dems of focusing too much on those “fringe things.” As I pointed out, they really weren’t focusing on those things much at all. Rather, as you said, it’s Republicans focusing on those things. And that’s what I was trying to explain in response to that poster.

 

[superrific]

I am a little confused as to why the Dems, for the most part, didn't stand for the cancer kid. Clearly used as a prop, but just terrible optics. I've been looking for a response from someone in Congress as to the reason, but haven't seen anything. Just seemed like an odd position to take and gives Trumpers a perfect opporutnity to remind everyone how "evil" Dems truly are.

Nobody is going to remember this. SOTU speeches and the like are theater that have no effect in the real world.

 

[superrific]

Again, my point is that both Dems and Reps focus on social issues because there really isn't (or wasn't) a needle-moving issue that differentiated the two parties outside of social issues.

I also mentioned it earlier.... I don't think tariffs moved the needle in 2024. For the average voter, tariffs are a fairly new variable. They could move the needle in 2028. That would be a social issue that differentiates the two parties and moves the needle.

Needle-moving is doing a lot of work for you there. And the problem with that reliance is that needle-moving is unobservable and question-begging. It's also hard to define what you mean. What if a person got really, really worked up about trans people. Does that mean their concern about the economy (if they favored Dems) was not needle-moving? I suppose you could say that retroactively, but it doesn't tell you much going forward.

I'd say the indiscriminate slashing and destruction of the federal government is needle-moving and an extremely significant issue at that, and the parties strongly differ.

The Pubs lean on social issues because their economic ideas are incredibly unpopular and would be huge losers if they ran on them. So they gay and race panic instead.

 

[ZenMode]

Needle-moving is doing a lot of work for you there. And the problem with that reliance is that needle-moving is unobservable and question-begging. It's also hard to define what you mean. What if a person got really, really worked up about trans people. Does that mean their concern about the economy (if they favored Dems) was not needle-moving? I suppose you could say that retroactively, but it doesn't tell you much going forward.

I'd say the indiscriminate slashing and destruction of the federal government is needle-moving and an extremely significant issue at that, and the parties strongly differ.

The Pubs lean on social issues because their economic ideas are incredibly unpopular and would be huge losers if they ran on them. So they gay and race panic instead.

The claim that I initially responded to was saying "Republicans are obsessed with social issues!". I said that was correct because, again, outside of social issues, there aren't many issues where Ds and Rs have a serious differences to focus on. Even tariffs are generally agreed upon by both parties - it really comes down to degrees of usage and tariffs, unless they hit Americans hard, probably aren't going to be needle moving. Neither is how much we tax capital gains, tax the top 1% earners, how much we spend on defense, etc. There just isn't enough daylight between Rs and Ds to make those issues meaningful.

How much did Ds pound on abortion rights? A LOT because that is something were Rs and Ds generally significantly differ.... it's also a social issue.

 

[OGtruthhurts]

I am a little confused as to why the Dems, for the most part, didn't stand for the cancer kid. Clearly used as a prop, but just terrible optics. I've been looking for a response from someone in Congress as to the reason, but haven't seen anything. Just seemed like an odd position to take and gives Trumpers a perfect opporutnity to remind everyone how "evil" Dems truly are.

Its because bipartisan politics have evolved into the partys of revengeful petty little snowflakes on both sides.

 

[nycfan]

 

[aGDevil2k]

Translation... I'm blaming you all for losing next year cause it's not my fault

 

[nycfan]

 

[nycfan]

 

[BlueSteel]

[Trump voice] "People are saying it was probably the most perfect swearing in in the last 100 years at least, I dunno, maybe in the history of the world probably, you know Julius Caesar's was pretty good as well from what I hear, people really enjoyed that one a lot, but I'm being told that mine was much better actually, and frankly I would agree." [/Trump voice]

 

[nycfan]

“During his address to Congress on Tuesday night, Trump boasted about what he described as a major win for the U.S. auto industry, claiming Honda had announced plans to build a massive new plant in Indiana.

"In fact, already, numerous car companies have announced that they will be building massive automobile plants in America, with Honda just announcing a new plant in Indiana, one of the largest anywhere in the world," Trump declared, crediting his administration’s tariffs and policies for the supposed expansion.

However, Honda quickly fact-checked the president’s claim, making it clear that no such announcement had been made. In a statement to WRTV, Honda firmly denied Trump’s assertion, emphasizing that its existing Indiana facility has been operational since 2008.

“Honda has made no such announcement and will not comment on this report,” the company said, clarifying that its long-standing approach has been to “build products close to the customer.” A Honda spokesperson further acknowledged Trump’s comments but reiterated that no new plant is in the works. …”

https://meidasnews.com/news/honda-fact-checks-trumps-claim-of-a-new-indiana-plant

 

[ChileG]

there's nothing "illogical" in pointing out that republicans used a kid with cancer as a prop last night but in the real world they're fucking over kids with cancer.

it's actually extremely logical, lmao.

Hey now, usually when Trump is using kids with cancer for props it is to steal money from them.
This is an improvement.

 

[CFordUNC]

 

[nycfan]

“About 36.6 million Americans watched President Trump live on television on Tuesday night, tuning in for his 100-minute speech to a joint session of Congress — the longest of its kind in the modern era.

Nielsen, the ratings agency, said the live television audience for Mr. Trump’s wide-ranging and often pugilistic address was up 13 percent from former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s final State of the Union speech a year ago.

… According to Nielsen, about 71 percent of live TV viewers were 55 and older. …”

More Than 36 Million Watched Trump’s Address to Congress on Live TV

The annual presidential speech is one of the last remaining mass-audience media moments available to a national politician.

www.nytimes.com

 

[BlueSteel]

“About 36.6 million Americans watched President Trump live on television on Tuesday night, tuning in for his 100-minute speech to a joint session of Congress — the longest of its kind in the modern era.

Nielsen, the ratings agency, said the live television audience for Mr. Trump’s wide-ranging and often pugilistic address was up 13 percent from former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s final State of the Union speech a year ago.

… According to Nielsen, about 71 percent of live TV viewers were 55 and older. …”

More Than 36 Million Watched Trump’s Address to Congress on Live TV

The annual presidential speech is one of the last remaining mass-audience media moments available to a national politician.

www.nytimes.com

I feel like that's an unfair comparison though. Instead of comparing viewer numbers of this or any Trump tv spectacle with that of previous presidents, shouldn't we comparing these to Jerry Springer or WWE numbers? You know, programming of a similar nature?