5 ms·

A Century of Political Spin

33 points by boh 11y ago

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Also worth adding is that the rise of "outsider" presidential candidates who gain large momentum (as the author mentions Trump and Sanders) has in fact been a staple of U.S. politics and seems to occur in intervals once every 12-20 years. Starting from the contemporary Republican-Democratic dichotomy, you had Henry A. Wallace of the Progressive Party gaining 2.4% (1.1+ million) in 1948, George Wallace of the American Independent Party getting 13.5% in 1968, John B. Anderson as an ex-Republican independent with 6.6% in in 1980 and finally, of course, Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996. (Eugene V. Debs was also an absolute sensation in the early 20th century. His imprisonment for sedition led to riots and he got 6% of the vote as a socialist in 1920 while in prison. Warren G. Harding commuted his sentence in 1921.) Thus, Trump is in fact nothing new or all that interesting as far as U.S. politics goes. He's just in time. It had been 19 years since Ross Perot's last candidacy. I don't expect anything consequential to occur out of either Trump or Sanders.
- lumberjack 11y ago
  But objectively Trump is pretty centrist, no? He is just not welcome by either of the political parties. Is that not the case?
  - loumf 11y ago
    He holds views far to the right of the Republican party. This is enough to explain why neither party would welcome him Even if he held mainstream Republican positions, the party might reject him on his tone and for not owing them anything. They also might not welcome him because he's unqualified to be president.
    - sahhhtt3 11y ago
      You mean "to the left of the Republicans" I assume? He's pro-gun control, pro-abortion, against eminent domain reform, pro-business regulation, and so on. He's historically donated to and endorsed Democrats including the Clintons. Basically he's the asshole version of Michael Bloomberg, who was technically a Republican but wouldn't have passed for one anywhere other than NYC.
      - outlace 11y ago
        He used to be some of those. He used to be a democrat. His current form as a presidential candidate is way hard-right.
        bruceb 11y ago
        He isn't hard right. All one has to do is go to rightwing blogs/news sites and see the many people who bemoan the fact he isn't conservative. Don't confuse saying impolite and occasionally trollish things with having "hard right" positions.
        outlace 11y ago
        I think going by his positions on issues and his supporters in scientific polls he would qualify as pretty far right, maybe not the farthest right, but definitely over there (definitely not center-right). I wouldn't use anonymous comments on blogs and news sites to place someone on the political spectrum.
      - loumf 11y ago
        He just says whatever will get him attention so it's hard to say what his positions are. However, if elected, it would presumably be on a mandate to build a wall on the Mexican border (and deport 11m undocumented immigrants), "beat up" the Chinese on currency manipulation, and keeping Muslims out. These are the things in his commercial and what he repeats over and over in current speeches.
    - oldmanjay 11y ago
      What are the qualifications you feel he's missing? I'm just curious, not a trump supporter trying to lure you into an argument.
      - loumf 11y ago
        I meant that the Republican Party leaders might think he's unqualified (to explain why they don't welcome him) His debate answer on the nuclear triad was just a bunch of gibberish. I think it was an indication of the attention he pays to subjects that don't interest him.
        oldmanjay 11y ago
        Makes sense, thanks!
- hayksaakian 11y ago
  What do you think of the fact that Trump could very likely be the republican candidate?
- yuhong 11y ago
  I think this is an important reason why the country was able to last so long, right?
- flubert 11y ago
  > I don't expect anything consequential to occur out of either Trump or Sanders. For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, Scott Adams take on Trump and persuasion/influence is fascinating. There is so much interesting stuff there, that I'll just link to the blog: http://blog.dilbert.com/ http://blog.dilbert.com/
- bruceb 11y ago
  Difference here is he may win the nomination of a major party as opposed to John Anderson and Perot who ran as third party candidates.
calibas 11y ago
Putting a positive spin on spin itself... Not surprising coming from one of Murdoch's papers.

33 points by boh 11y ago

Also worth adding is that the rise of "outsider" presidential candidates who gain large momentum (as the author mentions Trump and Sanders) has in fact been a staple of U.S. politics and seems to occur in intervals once every 12-20 years. Starting from the contemporary Republican-Democratic dichotomy, you had Henry A. Wallace of the Progressive Party gaining 2.4% (1.1+ million) in 1948, George Wallace of the American Independent Party getting 13.5% in 1968, John B. Anderson as an ex-Republican independent with 6.6% in in 1980 and finally, of course, Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996. (Eugene V. Debs was also an absolute sensation in the early 20th century. His imprisonment for sedition led to riots and he got 6% of the vote as a socialist in 1920 while in prison. Warren G. Harding commuted his sentence in 1921.) Thus, Trump is in fact nothing new or all that interesting as far as U.S. politics goes. He's just in time. It had been 19 years since Ross Perot's last candidacy. I don't expect anything consequential to occur out of either Trump or Sanders.

lumberjack 11y ago
But objectively Trump is pretty centrist, no? He is just not welcome by either of the political parties. Is that not the case?
- loumf 11y ago
  He holds views far to the right of the Republican party. This is enough to explain why neither party would welcome him Even if he held mainstream Republican positions, the party might reject him on his tone and for not owing them anything. They also might not welcome him because he's unqualified to be president.
  - sahhhtt3 11y ago
    You mean "to the left of the Republicans" I assume? He's pro-gun control, pro-abortion, against eminent domain reform, pro-business regulation, and so on. He's historically donated to and endorsed Democrats including the Clintons. Basically he's the asshole version of Michael Bloomberg, who was technically a Republican but wouldn't have passed for one anywhere other than NYC.
    - outlace 11y ago
      He used to be some of those. He used to be a democrat. His current form as a presidential candidate is way hard-right.
      - bruceb 11y ago
        He isn't hard right. All one has to do is go to rightwing blogs/news sites and see the many people who bemoan the fact he isn't conservative. Don't confuse saying impolite and occasionally trollish things with having "hard right" positions.
        outlace 11y ago
        I think going by his positions on issues and his supporters in scientific polls he would qualify as pretty far right, maybe not the farthest right, but definitely over there (definitely not center-right). I wouldn't use anonymous comments on blogs and news sites to place someone on the political spectrum.
    - loumf 11y ago
      He just says whatever will get him attention so it's hard to say what his positions are. However, if elected, it would presumably be on a mandate to build a wall on the Mexican border (and deport 11m undocumented immigrants), "beat up" the Chinese on currency manipulation, and keeping Muslims out. These are the things in his commercial and what he repeats over and over in current speeches.
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    What are the qualifications you feel he's missing? I'm just curious, not a trump supporter trying to lure you into an argument.
    - loumf 11y ago
      I meant that the Republican Party leaders might think he's unqualified (to explain why they don't welcome him) His debate answer on the nuclear triad was just a bunch of gibberish. I think it was an indication of the attention he pays to subjects that don't interest him.
      - oldmanjay 11y ago
        Makes sense, thanks!
hayksaakian 11y ago
What do you think of the fact that Trump could very likely be the republican candidate?
yuhong 11y ago
I think this is an important reason why the country was able to last so long, right?
flubert 11y ago
> I don't expect anything consequential to occur out of either Trump or Sanders. For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, Scott Adams take on Trump and persuasion/influence is fascinating. There is so much interesting stuff there, that I'll just link to the blog: http://blog.dilbert.com/ http://blog.dilbert.com/
bruceb 11y ago
Difference here is he may win the nomination of a major party as opposed to John Anderson and Perot who ran as third party candidates.

calibas 11y ago

Putting a positive spin on spin itself... Not surprising coming from one of Murdoch's papers.