Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jan 15 2019 05:25pm)

Is it really Trump's personality that is the driving factor though?
I mean, it certainly contributes, he's a firebrand. But is it the only or even the main factor?

For instance, the Dems are still salty AS FUCK because of their 2016 loss. Stonewalling (pun intended) Trump's key campaign promise is a way for them to take revenge for their crushing defeat two years ago, and in a certain sense, it is also a way of undoing Trump's electoral win on the policy level.


-----

Just imagine an alternative universe for a second. One in which Marco Rubio had been the GOP candidate in 2016. He's still the slick, spineless opportunist, and so he takes on a hard stance towards illegal immigration because that's what the GOP base wants. He runs as a conventional republican on most other issues, maybe throws the Tea Party a bone here and there, but his rhetoric is that of a career politician, it is far less incendiary than Trump's. When it comes to immigration, Rubio pushes hard for the wall and is very explicit in his opposition towards illegal immigration, but unlike Trump, he goes to great lengths to differentiate illegal from legal immigration and to emphasize that law-abiding immigrants are welcome in his America.

The Dems dont take Little Marco Rubio too seriously, he's too young, too inexperienced, and after all, Hilldog is the most qualified candidate ever, right, RIGHT? Then comes election day and Rubio catches them from left field and wins the White House through the electoral college, just like Trump did in our reality. Two years later, President Rubio pushes for the wall he promised.

In this scenario, would the Democrats oppose Rubio's wall as ferociously as they oppose Trump's? Probably not. But would there be stonewalling efforts from the Democrats against Rubio's wall? I, personally, am convinced that he answer is 'hell yeah'.

----

Quote

To combine my scenario with your bargaining example: a President Rubio would perhaps offer $1000, and the Dems would start out at $4000 instead of the 5000 they wanted from Trump. But even then 4k vs 1k is still too big of a gap to be bridged.

Quote (thesnipa @ 16 Jan 2019 00:26)

let's put it this way, simplest way i can.

do a simple algebra problem, if you implant ANYONE in the democratic lawmakers position does the situation change? no. If you put ANY other republican potus in the whitehouse, does the situation change? of course. it really is that simple.

Quote (thesnipa @ 16 Jan 2019 00:26)

this part just isn't correct tho, you're using trend lines under trump to imply what the democrats position under Rubio would be. that's not how it works. and that's my point.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jan 15 2019 05:34pm)

if you put any other republican potus in play, the situation does change, yes. but that's MY whole point: imho, it does not change enough to lead to a different outcome, it is not enough to suddenly allow for a real compromise with which both sides can be happy and arent torn apart by their base.
again: I dont deny that Trump's personality and rhetoric have made things even worse, and the way he handled the whole issue is a tactical disaster.

but all of that doesnt change my opinion, which is that irrespective of the Trump factor, there simply does not exist a compromise which wouldnt lead to at least one side getting eaten alive by their base.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jan 15 2019 05:36pm)

the current democratic trend has started somewhere between 2010 and 2012 though, long before Trump. the slope of the trend line would be more gentle without Trump constantly adding fuel to the fire, sure,

Quote

but there would still be a slope, the trend line wouldnt be flat.

Quote (thesnipa @ Jan 15 2019 11:37pm)

but i said that just before trump all the prominent democrats were pro-wall. then you countered with "here's what democratic voters think". then i said i was talking about the lawmakers, who's opinion was pro-wall, and imo therefore well within negotiation range.

if you want to do the legwork on finding EXACTLY when Obama, Hillary, Nanci, and Chuck's timeline is on supporting a wall, be my guest. But the day Trump said he was pro wall their pro wall ideas died, forever. im not sure how someone could argue that.

Quote (thesnipa @ 16 Jan 2019 00:37)

but i said that just before trump all the prominent democrats were pro-wall. then you countered with "here's what democratic voters think". then i said i was talking about the lawmakers, who's opinion was pro-wall, and imo therefore well within negotiation range.

if you want to do the legwork on finding EXACTLY when Obama, Hillary, Nanci, and Chuck's timeline is on supporting a wall, be my guest. But the day Trump said he was pro wall their pro wall ideas died, forever. im not sure how someone could argue that.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jan 15 2019 05:45pm)

the prominent democrats will follow the lead of their base on this issue. they used to be pro-wall back in the 00s, when a majority of the Democratic rank and file backed it. somewhere between then and now, the base changed its mind on immigration/border protection/the wall. data suggests that this took place around 2010 to 2012, long before trump. no matter who the leader of the Republican party is or would have been, it seems logical to me that the Democratic leaders would eventually have followed their base in its shift on immigration either way. Trump probably accelerated this shift, but imho it was bound to happen sooner or later anyway.

moreover, once we were in the 2016-2018 time period, the day any republican would have pushed for a wall would have been the day their pro wall ideas died. that's just the result of a rapidly diversifying Democratic coalition, and of 8 years of cultivation of the "cultural left" under Obama.

Quote (thesnipa @ 16 Jan 2019 00:47)

that bold is just incorrect. the base wasn't pro wall, it was pro immigration reform. Trump was unique in his "wall fixes all" approach to immigration. no one was really "pro wall" or "anti wall" pre-2015, at least not as an approach to "fix immigration" entirely. the reason the dems were for it was because it was a part of a larger plan.

Quote

on a side note i have zero idea how you're trying to build so much on a poll question about immigrants making the US stronger. that's rife with polling issues as evidence for "immigration ideals" of the parties, and entirely rests on those who identify with one party exclusively.