Max

Does anybody want to predict today's marquee races (not only who will win, but also by how much)? I'll post my predictions, but keep in mind that these predictions are heavily influenced by recent polling, which could very well be garbage (witness a "respected" poll that had Biden winning Wisconsin by 17 points as Election Day 2020 approached, or the fact that Susan Collins wasn't ahead in a single poll last year).

Polling is extremely scarce in New York City, but based on what I've seen, Eric Adams will defeat Curtis Sliwa by over 30 points. (In a post I wrote earlier this year, I wrote that there was an outside chance of Adams winning by only a 10 to 15 point margin. But for that to have occurred, NYC Democrats needed to be in disarray on Election Day, and a severe crime wave would have had to taken place.) Beyond Adams' 30+ point margin of victory, it's hard to make a prediction. However, I'm pretty sure that Adams will not replicate Bill de Blasio's 48.84% margin of victory over Republican Joe Lhota, as voters were extremely hungry for change in 2013 after 20 years of Giuliani and Bloomberg. And I'm guessing that Adams won't do quite as well as de Blasio did in 2017, when he defeated Nicole Malliotakis by 38.58 points (as I suspect that de Blasio fatigue will have some effect on Adams' margin of victory).

In New Jersey, a generic Democrat typically defeats a generic Republican by about 15 points. Though incumbent Democratic Governor Phil Murphy will not defeat his Republican opponent, former Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli, by that much, I do predict a nine or ten point Murphy victory. One very interesting factoid is that despite New Jersey's dark blue tint--it hasn't voted Republican for POTUS since 1988 and has not elected a GOP senator since 1972--Murphy would become the first Democratic governor to win a second term since the late Brendan Byrne accomplished this feat in 1977. (Note, however, that Democrats did win back-to-back gubernatorial elections in 2001 and 2005.)

Given how Democratic Virginia has become, I am very reluctant to predict that a Republican will win statewide. That said, I'll listen to the polls and the pundits and predict that Glenn Youngkin will defeat Terry McAuliffe by about a point. So much has already been written about the awful race that McAuliffe ran and the effect Biden's unpopularity is having on him, but I think McAuliffe is also being hurt by the aftermath of the Ralph Northam blackface scandal. (And none of us knows for sure if he was the one in blackface or if he was the one in the KKK costume; so many people are just taking Northam's word for it.) I do believe that the Northam scandal did play a part in McAuliffe's apparent failure to adequately link Youngkin to Trump, and I couldn't believe how idiotic McAuliffe was to have made campaign appearances with Northam. Plus, a 2019 statement of McAuliffe's came to light in which he absurdly suggested the infamous Northam photo was a youthful mistake (and then began to question whether Northam was in that photo at all):

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/22/politics/kfile-mcauliffe-northam-blackface-scandal/index.html

Regardless of how the Virginia gubernatorial election turns out, I do think that too much is being made regarding its impact on next year's midterms. Here's a good article that discusses the historical correlation between the Virginia gubernatorial contest and the subsequent midterm election:

https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/a-last-word-on-virginia/

Here's yesterday's episode of This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

One of George's guests was the great Adam Kinzinger. He has decided not to run for re-election, partly because sane people are no longer welcome in the GOP and party because of the extremely hypocritical and power-hungry behavior of the Illinois Democratic Party, who made Kinzinger a victim of gerrymandering. As Adam himself stated (starting at around the 13:10 mark), "When Democrats do say they want, you know, Republican partners to tell the truth and then they specifically target me, it makes you wonder." (And I am not sympathetic to the argument that Democrats have no choice but to gerrymander in those states where they are in charge, because failure to do so would be to unilaterally disarm. The reason for my lack of sympathy is that Democrats engaged in gerrymandering before it became something they incessantly complained about Republicans doing.)

One of my favorite parts of This Week with George Stephanopoulos is the "Powerhouse Roundtable." Whenever Chris Christie is on, it becomes Must-See TV, IMO. While I still have such a hard time understanding why he supported Trump, he is trying to walk back some of his prior support; for instance, he has called out The Big Lie on many occasions. From all indications, it appears that Christie will run for president in 2024, and he is certainly somebody I could support.

Though the 1980s is not exactly considered the high point for autos, one of my favorite cars ever--and undoubtedly my favorite car of the decade--was the 1986 Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable.

https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1986-ford-taurusmercury-sable-at-this-moment-you-mean-everything/

It's sad that Ford really dropped the ball with their ugly 1996 redesign of the Taurus and Sable. Though the '86 Taurus/Sable essentially saved the company, the only car Ford sells as of 2021 is the Mustang; all other Ford models are SUVs, light trucks, or vans. Even stranger, IMO, is that Lincoln has an all-SUV lineup (as has Buick, though that marque is obviously part of General Motors).

On an entirely different matter, I'm surprised that nobody has discussed '80s mall culture, since I think that was one of the best characteristics of the decade. The TV show "How I Met Your Mother" did this parody of '80s mall culture (though this parody supposedly occurred in 1993; the joke was that Canada is five years behind in everything):

Here's an iconic '80s song--sung by an iconic '80s artist--whose music video was filmed in various malls in Utah:

I've never watched "Stranger Things" (nor have I watched "How I Met Your Mother"), but the show did an amazing job of remaking a portion of an actual dead mall--in this case, the Gwinnett Place Mall in Duluth, Georgia--into a fictional '80s mall:

Somebody on YouTube made a comment--with which I'd concur--that he'd be willing to pay the same amount of money one normally pays to go to Disney World to be able to go to a mall like this in real life.

I really don't get the hatred for Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema, in spite of the big political differences the Democratic base has with them. The bottom line is without them, there is no Democratic Senate. Manchin is the only Democrat on the planet who could get elected to the Senate from West Virginia. And Sinema was a candidate recruited by Chuck Schumer for her proven skills in appealing to swing voters; in 2018, she became the first Democrat in 30 years to win a Senate seat from Arizona, and even then she managed to defeat a very weak Martha McSally by just 2.35%.

Given that Republicans have so many Senate seats to defend in 2022, Manchin and Sinema will likely be irrelevant after that election. And had Democrats performed better in the 2020 races, the two of them would already be irrelevant. Democrats were hoping to win seats in North Carolina, Iowa, Maine, and Montana, plus longer-shot races in South Carolina and Texas. In particular, Susan Collins had a huge bullseye on her back, yet Democrats failed miserably in their quest to defeat her.

By the way, I'm just as critical of Republicans every time they complain about their minority status in Congress, given that the two Republican candidates in Georgia decided to follow Donald Trump off a cliff and piss off those Senate races. And regardless of how many Republicans viewed Trump's presidency in a positive light, one would think there eventually would come a time when enough of these people would drop Trump (due to his toxicity) and replace him with a "better" version (i.e., somebody who engages in the same form of white identity politics but who is actually disciplined and cares about the electoral fortunes of other Republicans).

On a different matter, may Colin Powell R.I.P. The National Review has an interesting article speculating about what could have happened if he ran for president in 1996:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-if-colin-powell-ran-for-president-in-1996/

For those of you may recall, there was a big push by GOP elites to get Colin Powell to run in 1996; a similar push was made to get Chris Christie to run in 2012. Now while I very much admire Bob Dole and Mitt Romney, there was a strong belief among Republicans during the primaries that these two men would end up losing (so many viewed Powell and Christie as the best options to defeat Presidents Clinton and Obama, respectively).

Had Powell actually run, I don't believe that he would have won the 1996 GOP Nomination. A big part of this, of course, was because of his skin color and the racism that he would have encountered. To illustrate my point, just look at the racism that the Hillary Clinton campaign directed at Barack Obama when he ran for the Democratic nomination twelve years later. (Today's Democrats seem to have completely forgiven the Clintons for their behavior during that campaign, presumably because they patched things up afterward. But while that reconciliation might have been geniune, it might have also been something done largely for their mutual political benefit.)

Racism, however, wasn't the only obstacle that Powell would have had to overcome in GOP primary. Powell's pro-choice stance on abortion would have probably been just as big (or nearly as big) of an obstacle as his skin color.

I'm a bit less certain as to what might have occurred had Powell somehow managed to win the nomination. As the National Review article suggests a nationalist hate-monger such as Pat Buchanan might have ran as a minor candidate, thereby ensuring a Clinton second term. But if Powell was able to unify the GOP, I suspect he would have had a slightly greater than 50/50 chance of winning the general election, though it would not have been a cakewalk given the good economy. However, I fully remember how much of the 1996 Clinton campaign strategy centered on tying Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich at the hip. This was an unfair scare tactic (given the ideological and temperamental differences between the two men), and it wouldn't have worked on Colin Powell since he wasn't a creature of Congress (let alone a leader of Congress as was Dole).

One final note about Powell's potential 1996 candidacy was that I heard rumors that he was gearing up to run (for instance, he published a book in 1995 called "My American Journey"), but the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin understandably terrified Powell's wife, Alma (and so Colin Powell then promised Alma that he wouldn't run). Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated on November 4, 1995, and it was on November 8 when Powell announced he wouldn't run. Anyway, I have no idea just how true this rumor was (other than the fact that Powell's decision came so soon after the Rabin assassination), but I was curious if anyone else has ever heard this rumor.

On 7/9/2021 at 2:26 AM, Broderick said:

Maybe.  I'm not sure.  I believe a certain portion of the public saw Search for Tomorrow as a "write-off" as early as 1980.   That's based on my own personal experience, not a scientific survey, lol.  

I remember being a kid in study hall in the spring of 1980 and overhearing some much older high school kids discussing the impending demise of Search for Tomorrow.   They were all sitting around a table whispering (while they were SUPPOSED to be studying), and I was in a desk nearby.   One of the older kids asked, "What's been happening on Love of Life?  I haven't been watching lately because of basketball practice and softball practice."   (Love of Life came on late in the afternoon -- after school -- and some of the older kids watched it in sort of a half-assed manner.)  The response, of course, was that Love of Life had fatally bitten the dust back in February.   NOOOOOO, WHYYYY?  One of the more "television savvy" kids explained that Y&R had expanded to an hour in early February, forcing Love of Life off the air.  This was met with much remorse by the sporadic Love of Life viewers who weren't aware the show had been cancelled during basketball season.

This led to a long conversation at the table about Search for Tomorrow's odds of survival.  The older kids who were following the entire CBS line-up seemed to be aware that the new "trend" was either (a) expand to an hour or (b) get cancelled.  Much discussion followed about Y&R, ATWT, and GL all being a full hour now, and Search for Tomorrow still being a half-hour show.  Someone pointed out that SFT and LOL were "old shows" that had been around since the early 1950s, both were trapped in the half-hour format, and one of the two (Love of Life) had recently been given the axe.   The gist of it was that everyone at the table was in agreement that Search for Tomorrow was living on borrowed time in 1980.

I certainly wouldn't presume to suggest that all CBS viewers had that attitude toward SFT in 1980, but it was fairly sobering to hear eight or ten teenagers predict that the show would be gone from the CBS line-up in the next year or so.  And sure enough, about two years later, it was GONE.   I do think it would be safe to say that many CBS viewers probably DID see the cancellation of Love of Life as a harbinger of SFT's upcoming demise, especially with the schedule shuffling that soon followed, putting SFT in a strange, awkward slot several hours past its customary broadcast time.   The message to the viewers seemed to be, "We're not too vested in this one anymore."     

My sincerest apologies for this very belated response. I loved reading your amusing story, especially the part about how your classmates were discussing soaps during study hall when they should have been studying.

You make a good point about how, circa 1980, it appeared that the trend was either to expand to 60 minutes or face cancellation. Certainly, the perception was that the 30-minute soaps were the weaker ones. Interestingly enough, this perception persisted through the late-90s, even though B&B had been a highly successful soap for many years by that point.

Had SFT remained on CBS and expanded to an hour, and if it was posting solid ratings in the 1986-87 Season, the show's prospects for survival into the 90s may very well have nevertheless been shaky. As another poster here (I cannot recall exactly who) stated, SFT was not a family show the way that ATWT, GL, and AW were. If I am not mistaken, this poster went onto say that Mary Stuart's talent and charisma were enough to sustain SFT until the early-80s, but the show needed a younger generation of characters--tied to legacy families--in order to continue to remain competitive in the ratings. (If I am misrepresenting what this poster wrote, I apologize.) SFT's writers certainly erred in killing off too many characters who were part of Jo's family (including her sister, Eunice). I don't have the time to research the familial ties of Stu Bergman, but the comments written about about Mary Stuart and Jo also apply to Larry Haines and Stu. Although Liza was Stu's granddaughter, there still needed to be more of a core family structure surrounding Stu by the time the early-80s rolled around.

2 hours ago, Broderick said:

 Interesting that Brockman was stringing along John Conboy with the idea that "Capitol" might be spared from the chopping block.   I was thinking it was always a fait accompli that the Bell soap would be replacing the Conboy soap.  

When Brockman made that comment (which was published in July of 1986), Capitol's cancellation was pretty much a fait accompli. But he obviously wouldn't admit that publicly, since that would cause further erosion in Capitol's ratings.

However, I don't think that it was a 100% certainty that Capitol was doomed from the start. As I've indicated before, though a new Bell soap was what CBS really wanted, I believe the network would have also kept Capitol had that not been its lowest-rated soap. To accommodate both Capitol and B&B on CBS's schedule, ATWT or GL would have been trimmed down to 30 minutes. (And given how each of those two soaps were performing in the ratings during the 1986-87 Season, GL would have been the show that reverted back to 30 minutes.)

I feel the same way in regards to SFT (had CBS chosen not to cancel it back it 1982 to make way for Capitol); if SFT was not the lowest-rated soap on CBS, it would've coexisted with B&B on the CBS schedule (while GL was reduced by 30 minutes). As to how SFT's Nielsen ratings would have compared with those of ATWT or GL during the 1986-87 Season had it remained on CBS, it's impossible to know. Obviously, one can say with virtual certainty that it would have been in much stronger shape (both in terms of ratings and of quality) than it was while on NBC.

2 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

Honestly, I don't think so. Adams is a centrist and a former cop who was never in favor of defunding the police. He spoke out against it, which did not endear him to progressives.

It was rumored that he was DeBlasio's preferred candidate, but to my knowledge, DeBlasio never openly endorsed Adams.

Adams has baggage and Curtis Sliwa has massive baggage, including a history of faking rescue incidents with the Guardian Angels. Also, he just became a Republican last year, after years of systematically imploding the political party he once belonged to.  I guess the fact that he called Trump a crackpot could be seen as a positive but I don't see most NYers outside of SI and certain parts of Queens being willing to trust their city to a Republican.

not after four tragic years of Trump.

Though Adams opposes defunding the police, it's not uncommon for major party nominees to be hurt by stances taken by the party's base (even if such views differ from those of the candidate). This isn't the best parallel to what might happen in NYC, but Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger seemed to believe the "Defund the Police" messaging is what caused problems for her and other House Democrats in 2020 (in spite of the fact that Spanberger herself doesn't hold such views).

If we're talking about executive branch positions, major party nominees will usually be hurt if they are running to succeed an unpopular incumbent. The most obvious recent example of this was with John McCain in 2008, whom I believe was damaged more by George W. Bush than by Sarah Palin. And when Larry Hogan won a stunning victory to become Governor of Maryland in November 2014, the unpopularity of then-Governor Martin O'Malley proved to be a factor in the downfall of the Democratic Party's gubernatorial nominee that year.

If I lived in NYC, I most definitely would not vote for Sliwa given all the skeletons in his past. But the scenario I mentioned (of a ten-to-fifteen point Adams victory) could conceivably happen if (1) Sliwa can capitalize on the factors I previously mentioned, (2) there's huge turnout in the Trumpy portions of the city, and (3) there's low turnout everywhere else. Of course, Adams winning by 30+ points is the far more likely outcome given that NYC is overwhelmingly Democratic and given that Sliwa will be saddled with both Trump's massive baggage as well as that of his own.

I'm opposed to ranked choice voting when it comes to primaries, primarily because certain candidates could form opportunistic alliances. (Certainly, candidates have every right to do so, but I'm not a fan of such machinations.) I think that a much better system is simply to have the top two vote getters advance to a runoff (unless one gets an outright majority). Though I can see some voters being disenchanted if they are displeased with both of the top two vote getters, a runoff does provide each of the remaining candidates with a chance to further expand his or her appeal.

I very much want to see the two-party duopoly come to an end, and ranked choice voting could work quite well in a general election (with a voter being limited to ranking his/her top two or three candidates). Though opportunistic alliances could also form during a general election, it would be extraordinarily unlikely for the Republican and Democratic nominees in a given election to make such an alliance. Whether it be ranked choice voting or a top-two candidate runoff, such a system would allow voters to seriously consider supporting third party and independent candidates without fear of "throwing away" their votes. (Even with RCV or a runoff system, I concede that minor party and independent candidates are likely to do quite poorly at first. But if their vote share increases, so will their money and their chances of participating in future general election debates, both of which are absolutely essential for electoral success.)

Regarding the NYC mayoral election, it's way too early to predict what will happen in the fall other than to say that Democratic victory is certain. What I will be very curious about is Eric Adams' margin of victory over GOP nominee Curtis Sliwa. Mr. Sliwa is a deeply flawed candidate, and NYC is way more Democratic today than it was when Rudy Giuliani ran for mayor, but Adams's candidacy will be harmed by Mayor de Blasio's unpopularity, NYC's crime surge, some voters' opposition to the police defunding movement, and the divisive Democratic primary. (The divisive 1989 primary between David Dinkins and Ed Koch certainly helped Giuliani that November. And the divisive 2001 runoff between Mark Green and Fernando Ferrer was a factor in Michael Bloomberg's general election win.)

While I think that the most likely scenario is that Adams wins by over thirty points, it wouldn't be the biggest shock in the world if the margin of victory is between ten and fifteen points. However, a single digit Adams victory would be a big surprise and likely complicate his efforts to be an effective mayor. I certainly don't see how Sliwa could manage such a strong showing, though I do think a Republican in the mold of Governors Charlie Baker, Larry Hogan, or Phil Scott could perform such an electoral feat.

Richard Donner Dead: ‘Superman’, ‘Lethal Weapon’ Director Was 91 – Deadline

This is such sad news, in spite of his advanced age. "Superman" is my all-time favorite movie, and he's also the reason why "Superman II" is a great film. (I personally think that Part II had an even stronger story than Part I, but the horrendous decision to fire him--even though the second film was about 75% complete at the time--definitely took a toll on the overall production quality of "Superman II.") Donner's death is also coming so soon after Ned Beatty ("Otis") passed.

Aside from "Superman" and both versions of "Superman II" (the "Donner Cut" and the theatrical version, the latter of which contains about 30% of scenes he directed), I must admit (to the best of my memory) to never watching any of his other legendary movies in full, whether it be a film in the "Lethal Weapon" franchise or "The Goonies." [EDIT: After I wrote this post, I remembered that I did watch "Scrooged" at least once.]

I'm not sure if it would be more appropriate to discuss this topic in a separate thread, but I've long been fascinated with the behind-the-scenes story of the Christopher Reeve Superman franchise (which went off the rails with "Superman III" and had a very sad ending with "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace," a film that often makes lists of worst movies ever made). I'll post these five videos (that have long been available on YouTube) in this thread, unless the moderators deem it more appropriate they be discussed in a separate thread. These five clips are a documentary of the development behind the Reeve Superman series, with a heavy emphasis on the major contributions Richard Donner made:

 

 

 

 

 

On 7/3/2021 at 7:46 PM, robbwolff said:

 

I never had the impression that Capitol was put together hastily. As I recollect, the Karpfs wrote the bible for Capitol in 1980 (I remember reading it online). There were a lot of characters that never made it to air. The bible was then rewritten at some point. CBS wasn’t just considering Capitol to replace Search for Tomorrow. There was a second soap in contention: Beverly Hills. I recall a Soap Opera Digest article from the summer of 1981 where they discussed rumors that Search was on the chopping block. And a few years prior to Capitol's debut, CBS had been toying with adding another soap to its lineup: Aaron's World.

 

Thanks for your informative response. Since CBS was considering a number of soaps to either replace SFT or something else in its lineup, I find it interesting that the network kept Love of Life around for so long, as that soap was in the bottom tier of the ratings since the 1972-73 Season (save for a modest improvement in rank during the 1975-76 Season). While LOL was likely a decent money maker for CBS until its final season (when ratings plunged to a 3.5 all the way from the 5.8 it had the previous year), I highly suspect that soap also suffered from older skewing demos, which one would logically believe to also be the primary reason for SFT's cancellation. (As for SFT's then-new 2:30 P.M. timeslot, it's hard to imagine the disagreement between CBS and P&G being so contentious as to cause that soap's cancellation. Of course, I could certainly be mistaken on that matter.)

 

On 6/29/2021 at 5:41 PM, kalbir said:

Which show is worse in your opinion, Capitol or B&B?

 

Capitol served two purposes. CBS needed something young and glamorous to compete with ABC, and it was a time filler until Bill Bell had a second show ready. 

 

CBS approached Bill Bell in 1977 for a second show but for whatever reason he didn't have one ready until a decade later. If Bill Bell had a second show ready in 1977, we probably wouldn't have gotten GL expanding to one hour that year. I really think CBS wanted a second Bill Bell show to replace Search for Tomorrow in 1982 but early 1980s Y&R was in transition mode so Bill Bell was probably focused on getting Y&R settled at that time. Even if CBS kept Search for Tomorrow, it would have ended once Bill Bell had a second show ready to go.

 

All of the discussion in this thread leads me to believe that Capitol was put together very hastily. CBS had wanted Bill Bell to produce a second soap for many years, but he of course wasn't ready to do so until the late-80s. At the same time, it seems quite clear that CBS was willing to keep SFT on its daytime schedule (until Bell's second soap was ready) on the condition that it air at the time CBS wanted it to air. But because P&G was giving CBS a lot of grief over the 2:30 P.M. timeslot, and also because SFT had older-skewing demos, CBS decided to cancel SFT altogether. Once that decision was made, CBS very quickly needed a replacement, and it made some sense to turn to John Conboy given his success at Y&R. Though Capitol's initial purpose was to be a time filler, I suspect CBS would have kept it once B&B was ready had Capitol performed considerably better in the Nielsen's. And even though Capitol was never really a soap that CBS wanted, it still embodied so much wasted potential, IMO. Though I haven't watched much of the soap, the episodes I did watch never captivated me. This is especially puzzling since--at least on paper--a soap about politics would seem to be a lot more interesting than a soap about the fashion industry.

 

Now, in Capitol's defense, CBS should have aired that soap at 1:30 P.M. during its entire run; sandwiching it between ATWT and GL just seemed odd. It's interesting to examine the history of the timeslots of the CBS soaps (for the Eastern Time Zone), which one can do by visiting this awesome website: http://daytimetvarchive.com/

 

For easy reference, I'll type out an abbreviated history of the CBS Daytime schedule throughout the 1980s, covering just the soaps:

 

SCHEDULE FROM 04/23/1979 TO 02/01/1980

12:00 P.M. to 12:30 P.M. - The Young and the Restless

12:30 P.M. to 01:00 P.M. - Search for Tomorrow

01:00 P.M. to 01:30 P.M. - Timeslot Given to Local Stations*

01:30 P.M. to 02:30 P.M. - As the World Turns

02:30 P.M. to 03:30 P.M. - Guiding Light

03:30 P.M. to 04:00 P.M. - M*A*S*H (Reruns) / One Day at a Time (Reruns)*

04:00 P.M. to 04:30 P.M. - Love of Life [This soap's final timeslot.]

 

*NOTE: As I didn't wan't to "leave any gaps" in between the time when CBS's first and last soaps of the day aired, there obviously are some timeslots in the above schedule that were not reserved for soaps. As of 2/4/80, the half-hour given to local stations switched from its longtime 1:00 P.M. to 1:30 P.M. time period to the 12:00 P.M. to 12:30 P.M. slot, where it remains today. Regarding the M*A*S*H reruns, they last appeared on the CBS Daytime schedule on 9/7/79. Reruns for One Day at a Time aired from 3:30 P.M. to 4:00 P.M. from 9/10/79 to 2/1/80. These reruns assumed a new timeslot of 4:00 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. on 2/4/80.

 

SCHEDULE FROM 02/04/1980 TO 06/05/1981

12:30 P.M. to 01:00 P.M. - Search for Tomorrow

01:00 P.M. to 02:00 P.M. - The Young and the Restless

02:00 P.M. to 03:00 P.M. - As the World Turns

03:00 P.M. to 04:00 P.M. - Guiding Light

 

SCHEDULE FROM 06/08/1981 TO 03/26/1982

12:30 P.M. to 01:30 P.M. - The Young and the Restless

01:30 P.M. to 02:30 P.M. - As the World Turns

02:30 P.M. to 03:00 P.M. - Search for Tomorrow

03:00 P.M. to 04:00 P.M. - Guiding Light

 

SCHEDULE FROM 03/29/1982 TO 03/20/1987

12:30 P.M. to 01:30 P.M. - The Young and the Restless

01:30 P.M. to 02:30 P.M. - As the World Turns

02:30 P.M. to 03:00 P.M. - Capitol

03:00 P.M. to 04:00 P.M. - Guiding Light

 

SCHEDULE FROM 03/23/1987 TO 09/18/2009

12:30 P.M. to 01:30 P.M. - The Young and the Restless

01:30 P.M. to 02:00 P.M. - The Bold and the Beautiful

02:00 P.M. to 03:00 P.M. - As the World Turns

03:00 P.M. to 04:00 P.M. - Guiding Light

 

If you look at the history of the daytime soap ratings and rankings, one has to conclude that Y&R struggled somewhat with its expansion to 60 minutes. This fact is evident when one ascertains that the 1980-81 Season was the only season since (and including) 1975-76 in which Y&R did not rank among the five highest rated daytime soaps. I'm guessing the 6/8/81 timeslot change from 1:00 P.M. - 2:00 P.M. to 12:30 P.M. - 1:30 P.M. was made by CBS in hopes that Y&R would regain its footing.

 

I've previously mentioned being puzzled in regards to Capitol not airing at 1:30 P.M. But independent of Capitol's launch (which was a mistake, IMO), I'll now add my opinion that CBS erred in moving SFT all the way to 2:30 P.M. on 6/8/81; a less drastic move to 1:30 P.M. would have made more sense. I assume the end of ATWT's two decade dominance (which only ended some three years prior) had both CBS and P&G in a real panic, and TPTB thought that ATWT could make up some lost ground if it assumed its longstanding start time of 1:30 P.M.

 

Anyway, it was extremely unfortunate how SFT was screwed over by so many executives. CBS's attention in the early-80s was clearly focused on getting a new Bell soap on air ASAP and on improving the ratings of Y&R and ATWT. P&G was worried about not just ATWT but also the dire situation at AW. And NBC and P&G were absolutely foolish to think SFT wouldn't lose a massive portion of its audience upon switching networks (with the added burden of competing against Y&R). After some efforts to promote SFT during its first year on the network, NBC sadly subjected it to gimmick after gimmick.

 

18 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

Over the years the numbers representing a ratings point changed a lot so a 16.1 in 1953 meant far fewer viewers than a smaller number years  later.

 

Your point is well taken.

 

I've tried to ascertain the number of viewers which one Nielsen ratings point has represented over the years, but I have been unsuccessful in my search. (I could definitely visit a site such as Newspapers.com and do further research, but I simply do not have the time to do so in the next few days.) I have read statements to the effect that one ratings point is equal to one percent of the households in the United States. Yet to go back to the aforementioned SFT example, I find it implausible that only 16.1 percent of households with televisions were tuned into that soap during the 1952-53 Season.

 

During the highest rated week of daytime history (November 16-20, 1981), GH scored a mammoth Nielsen rating of 16.0. Its highest seasonal rating of 11.4 was actually during the prior season (1980-81), though the 1981-82 Season still garnered an 11.2 rating. Based on what you told me, there had to have been more people watching GH during the very early-80s than were watching ATWT at its 1963-64 Neilsen ratings peak of 15.4. And as I already stated, GH's pop culture impact exceeded whatever impact ATWT had at the height of its popularity.

 

I have long been surprised that GH held onto the yearly # 1 position for a far shorter period of time--only about nine years--than either ATWT (before it) or Y&R (after it). And the history is even more surprising when one examines the weekly ratings, as ATWT and Y&R held uninterrupted weekly streaks of # 1 performances for about 11 years and 30+ years, respectively. The fact that GH was knocked out of the top weekly spot as early as 1982 (which I never knew before reading this thread) is truly shocking.

 

NBC Daytime made so many mistakes during the 1980s that one could write an essay discussing them. CBS wasn't perfect, as evidenced by the fact the network's executives oversaw a decline in GL's quality during the second half of the decade and--more significantly--erred in replacing SFT with Capitol. But the executives at ABC clearly have to shoulder the blame for the fact that GH's reign at the top was a lot shorter than it should have been given the soap's level of pop culture prominence.

2 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

Welcome back, @Max.

 

Thank you so very much, Carl. I hope that all is going well with you.

 

Though I have not posted in a few years, I still love to visit SON and read the thoughtful comments that people write. When it comes to the level of knowledge and insight of those who post, no other message board even comes close.

 

Thanks again for your kind words.

On 6/19/2021 at 7:23 PM, Chrissy81730 said:

The ratings for GH were insane. No other soap has come close to that popularity. Y&R never reached those ratings heights. And they never will, despite being #1 for decades now. I’m sure ABC still has funds from the heyday of Gloria Monty’s reign as General Hospital’s: Executive Producer. History was made for sure. 

 

In terms of pop culture impact--and probably in turns of profits generated, as well--I suspect that you are correct. But the highest rated soaps from the 1950s through the beginning of the 70s had higher seasonal Nielsen ratings than did Monty's GH. If Wikipedia is correct, SFT had a record 16.1 Nielsen rating during the 1952-53 Season. ATWT had a bigger cultural impact than SFT, as the troubled marriage of Bob and Lisa appealed to many viewers during the early-60s. (For ATWT, it peaked at a 15.4 rating in the 1963-64 Season, compared to 11.4 for Monty's GH.)

 

ATWT's dominance was finally challenged by Agnes Nixon's AW, Bill Bell's DOOL, and the dual medical dramas of The Doctors and a pre-Monty GH. But even with all that, soaps were still (very unfairly) viewed as disposable, throw-away material. It wasn't until the mid-70s when public perceptions of soaps were altered, as AMC and Y&R changed the game and attained white-hot levels of popularity among a younger and more urban audience. Since Gloria Monty's first stint at GH began not long thereafter, some understandably but erroneously believe that was when soaps were at their most popular.

On 6/19/2021 at 8:55 PM, Paul Raven said:

Feb sweeps daytime ratings 10am-4pm 84 v 83

1984

CBS 7.6

ABC 7.1

NBC 5.3

 

1983

CBS 6.9

ABC 7.5

NBC 4.6

 

NBC must have been cheered about their improvement and hoping Santa Barbara would further help.

ABC's decline may have been attributed to Loving and the various 11am shows failing to make an impact.

 

This may be heresy, but I think that NBC should never have launched Santa Barbara in the Summer of 1984. I can see why NBC wanted to air a unique soap, but such a launch should have waited until the network's daytime division was more on par (in terms of Nielsen ratings strength) with that of CBS and ABC. Both DOOL and AW experienced very encouraging ratings growth during the 1983-84 Season, but the latter soap still had so much more ground to make up due to the disastrous 90-minute experiment and decision to spinoff the Iris character to Texas. Once DOOL showed that it could place in the Top 5 (in the weekly ratings), the same level of focus and attention should have been given to AW. Sadly that never happened, as 1983 & 84 proved to be the most promising years (ratings wise) for AW post-Lemay. For NBC to have shifted its focus from AW's continued recovery to the big promotional efforts associated with launching SB was a huge mistake, IMO.

George H.W. Bush was president when I first became interested in politics and was somebody who I really admired, so his death brings quite a bit of sadness for me. I know that this isn’t going to be popular, but I thought that the American people made a horrendous mistake in 1992 when they rejected Bush’s bid for a second term and chose Bill Clinton. That said, I recognize that Bush was far from perfect. Nor was he even the individual whom I wish were elected president in 1998; that distinction actually goes to Bob Dole.

 

What’s interesting is that had Michael Dukakis defeated GHWB in 1988, history would have been different in so many ways. Obviously, Dukakis probably would have handled the tumultuous international events which occurred in 1989, 1990, and 1991 in a very different manner than Bush handled them. And domestically, Bush’s 1988 win paved the way for a series of events that allowed all his successors to reach the White House: First, GHWB’s sky-high approval ratings after the First Gulf War led many to believe that he was unbeatable in 1992 and caused all the big name Democrats to take a pass that year; had he had more serious competition, Bill Clinton—who was little-known outside of Arkansas at the start of the 1990's—almost certainly would not have received the Democratic Nomination. (Had Dukakis won in 1988, there obviously would not have been a contested Democratic primary until 1996. But regardless, Clinton would still have had the same level of difficultly winning the nomination due the fact that he was a little-known governor.) Secondly, had GHWB lost in 1988, chances are that his sons would have had a considerably tougher time launching political careers on their own, which—in turn—would have meant that George W. Bush would likely have never become president. Then, were it not for Bush 43’s disastrous second term, the American electorate likely would not have been willing to take a chance on somebody as inexperienced as Barack Obama. And finally, the sad fact of the matter is that Donald Trump’s presidency probably would not have occurred had he not become the leader of the Birther Movement (as that pretty much launched his political career).

 

Before I conclude this post, I wanted to share these fascinating Election Night videos from 1988 and 1992 that are available on YouTube (in case anybody hasn’t yet seen them):

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Roman said:

let me say something you thought I would NEVER say.....I agree with you. I still feel the worst he gets, he will get some primary challenges, but now I have to see...what GOP will rise from this? they need many more moderates in the party, and from what I see, this is the beginning of a civil war within the party.

 

It’s impossible to predict with 100% certainty what will happen to the GOP if the Trump presidency implodes. Perhaps a Democrat wins in 2020 but a major recession or some other crisis then occurs which results in the GOP rebounding by 2024. However, even though the GOP quickly rebounded after Watergate and GWB’s disastrous second term, I think that a similar type of rebound is unlikely to happen if the Trump presidency implodes because the GOP is much more “locked in” with Trump than it ever was with Nixon or Bush.

 

Much more likely, IMO, is that the GOP either (1) spends a very long time in the political wilderness before attaining power again (which is what happened after Herbert Hoover’s presidency) or (2) permanently splits up, with the white nationalists forming one political party and mainstream conservatives (many of whom supported Trump in 2016, but only reluctantly) establishing another political party. If the GOP splits in two, the Democrats would then control all levers of power in the immediate aftermath. Over time, however, I would not be surprised if serious fissures develop in the Democratic Party between the moderate and liberal wings (as pretty much all the important policy fights would be between moderate and liberal Democrats), which could eventually lead to the Democratic Party also splitting in two. Thus, a quarter-century or so from now, it wouldn’t shock me if the United States were to have a four-party system.

 

One other comment (regarding something that you mentioned) is that Cult 45 will almost certainly never blame either themselves or Trump in the event that his presidency implodes. Hannity and Trump's other propagandists have already laid the groundwork over who will be to blame if Trump goes down: It will be the fault of the mainstream media, Democrats, and the "deep state." But above all, Cult 45 will pin the blame on "RINOs" and NeverTrumpers. All this anger and finger-pointing will likely lead to a prolonged civil war within the GOP. Whether the GOP can eventually put itself back together after spending a long time in the political wilderness or whether it permanently breaks up is an open question.

On 11/19/2018 at 12:49 AM, alphanguy74 said:

The question would be this... if a third party or an independent won enough states that NOBODY got to 270 electoral votes, then what then?  

 

Alphanguy, I believe that the election heads to the House if no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes, and that each state's delegation has one vote. Also, I believe that the newly elected House (i.e., the House that is elected in the 2020 election) would have the power to cast the votes for president.

 

In regards to how each House member would vote, I would guess that 95+% of them would support his or her party's nominee, since supporting the independent candidate would be suicidal for any House member other than a Democrat representing a solidly red district or a Republican representing a solidly blue district.

 

On 11/19/2018 at 9:33 AM, Roman said:

I personally believe many Republicans will throw their hats in the ring. Trump will get primaried.

 

Roman, I wish that were the case, but I unfortunately do not see Trump facing any serious primary challengers in 2020, because there are too many cowardly Republicans who refuse to stand up to Trump and his cult (and the awful showing for Republicans in the midterms will do little to change that).

 

I actually do believe that Trump will face a primary challenge, but it will be one or more of the usual suspects, such as John Kasich, Jeff Flake, or Ben Sasse, all of whom are pariahs within the GOP. Those who are serious threats, such as Nikki Haley, Ted Cruz, and others, are too craven to challenge Trump, because such individuals know that challenging Trump would be seen as an unforgivable sin by much of the GOP base.

 

Of course, if Trump’s presidency implodes (either because of the findings of the Mueller investigation or because of some other scandal that has yet to be made public), then the 2020 GOP nomination will be a free-for-all. And I suspect that Haley, Cruz, Mike Pence, and other serious contenders are busy laying the groundwork for a presidential run (despite their public displays of loyalty to the POTUS) in the event that happens.

7 hours ago, alphanguy74 said:

 Max, do you truly think he has no chance of getting the nomination? You don't see that they might have learned their lesson with what happened with Bernie? It cost them the white house.  One thing that might work is a populist like him, and a more establishment running mate like Elizabeth Warren. But having a woman running mate was poison for John McCain... maybe a woman on the ticket is just plain poison PERIOD. 

 

Alphanguy, I would be very surprised if Ojeda got the Democratic nomination. However, I've been wrong before in my predictions, and the fact that the 2020 Democratic field is likely to be very large increases the odds for longshot candidates like Ojeda.

 

Regarding the whole Bernie/Hillary feud, I hold opinions that are going to be unpopular with those who are die-hard supporters of either of them. I think that Bernie would have done even worse than Hillary in the general election, for all the reasons that DramatistDreamer mentioned. (I know that polls showed Bernie handily defeating Trump, but such polls are meaningless because Bernie never went through the grind of a general election campaign. This is an extreme example, but many people forget that Michael Dukakis once led George H. W. Bush by 17 points, only to get crushed on Election Day.)

 

At the same time, I am very sympathetic with the Bernie people when they express their views that the 2016 nomination was not a fair fight. Some in the Bernie wing of the party, such as Elizabeth Warren (who granted didn't formally endorse Bernie but shares most of his ideology), claim that the nomination was rigged:

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-dnc-rigged-2016-primary-clinton-sanders-2017-11

 

I would not go so far as to say that the 2016 Democratic primary was rigged, but it's evident that the scales were heavily tipped in Hillary's favor. Here's just one article that elaborates on this:

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/donna-brazile-warren-bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-rigged

 

"It’s easy to imagine Democrats who might have run in 2016. There’s Biden and Warren and Hickenlooper, but there was also New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, to name just a few. But all of these candidates, and all the other candidates like them, ultimately passed on the race. Why?"

 

"But part of it was the way elected officials, donors, and interest groups coalesced behind Clinton early, making it clear that alternative candidates would struggle to find money and staff and endorsements and media coverage. Clinton had the explicit support of the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party and the implicit support of the Obama wing. She had spent decades building relationships in the party, and she leveraged them all in 2016. “Hillary had a lot of friends, and so did Bill,” says Elaine Kamarck, author of Primary Politics. This, in reality, is why Biden didn’t run: President Obama and his top staffers made quietly clear that they supported Clinton’s candidacy, and so she entered the field with the imprimatur that usually only accords to vice presidents."

 

"The 2016 Democratic primary wasn’t rigged by the DNC, and it certainly wasn’t rigged against Sanders. But Democratic elites did try to make Clinton’s nomination as inevitable, as preordained, as possible. And the party is still managing the resentment that engendered in voters."

 

IMO, immense pressure was placed on Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and others not to challenge Hillary for the nomination. This pressure most likely wasn't explicit (e.g., party bosses advising other prominent Democrats not to run), but rather implicit (e.g., big money donors solely giving to Hillary, top talent choosing to only work for Hillary, etc.). The other candidates who did run weren't viewed as serious threats to Hillary. That was certainly the case with Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chafee. And I believe that it was the case with Bernie as well, because--keep in mind--that few people outside Vermont even knew who he was four years ago at this point. As the Vox article pointed out, the fact that the field was essentially cleared for Clinton ironically ended up helping Bernie, as there was a large appetite among a segment of the Democratic base that wanted someone to the left of Hillary. Had Warren run, it's very likely that Bernie would never have caught fire, as she was (at the time) the most prominent figure in that wing of the Democratic Party. In fact, I suspect that Warren would have beaten Hillary for the nomination had she run, since Warren would have had a considerably easier time than Bernie attracting support among minorities and the Democratic Party elite (such as superdelegates). Warren made a mistake not running in 2016, because that was the year when her prospects were the brightest. Of course, Warren isn't alone in missing her big moment: I'm sure that Chris Christie deeply regrets not running in 2012, and I believe that Hillary's best chance of becoming POTUS was in 2004. To his credit, Obama understood that 2008 represented a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for him, and that he would not be viewed as the hot new political phenomenon had he waited to run for president at a later time.

On 11/15/2018 at 10:30 AM, alphanguy74 said:

Richard Ojeda is the one who IMO, has the best chance of beating Trump... if he picks a good running mate, Trump wouldn't have a chance. He may have lost his race, but it was also the biggest swing in the country. Military Major, and southern accent... he would win Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tennessee, I guarantee it. I've always said, a centrist Democrat that treads lightly when it comes to gun control will win without any hassle at all. Mark my words, he's gonna gain momentum like Bernie did. Only this time, Hillary won't be in the way. If he chooses someone like John Kasich as a running mate, to show unity, he would be unstoppable.

 

 

Alphanguy, I agree that Ojeda would make a very formidable general election candidate, but he unfortunately has zero chance of winning the nomination. And there would likely be a revolt at the Democratic Convention if Kasich were ever named as a VP selection.

 

2020 probably represents the best chance in a very long time for an independent candidate to challenge the two-party duopoly. If Kasich wants to have any chance of making an impact, he should skip the GOP Primary (since the Republican base despises him) and go the independent route. However, I very much like your idea of a moderate Democrat and a moderate Republican running together in an attempt at a "unity" ticket, and I could see either individual (Ojeda or Kasich) choosing the other as a running made as a way to offer voters an alternative to both major parties. Even if such an effort fails, I strongly believe that a third major political party is long overdue, and such a presidential campaign would help to lay the groundwork for that.

 

I believe this was mentioned before, but Michael Bloomberg is also a complete non-starter in a Democratic Primary. If he wants to run--and 2020 really is his last chance--he should launch an independent bid:

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/11/17/bloomberg_eyes_2020_but_would_dems_warm_to_him_138681.html

 

On 11/11/2018 at 4:30 PM, JaneAusten said:

@Max

 

Thanks Max. I appreciate your response

 

First, not one person will argue about the histories of the 2 individuals you mentioned. Byrd denounced his role many years before he died. I guess I am not sure why those histories keep getting dragged out when pointing out racism in the Democratic party. We all know what happened with the Southern Strategy. Lee Atwater confessed his complicity in it in an interview when he was dying and it's influence in the GOP.

 

2008 was a very nasty campaign for the democrats. Actually IMO it was more Bill than Hillary. I won't give them a pass. But as a white person it's not up to me to decide if the Clinton team should be given a pass. For example I still will never vote for Joe Biden for president due to Anita Hill. But lots of people have given him a pass. That's each person's individual decision.

 

As for the GOP, I would like to know what policies they embrace or claim to that you support. My dad was a republican but jumped ship after Reagan(and he wasn't a huge Reagan fan - deficits). If it's about smaller gvmt, that's a lost debate. We've turned a lot of work over to private defense contractors and private prison contractors, both of whom rake us over the coals in terms of costs. Our federally run prisons cost significantly less per prisoner than the private prison contractors, and we now stay engaged militarily, many times serving crimes against humanity such as in Yemen, to keep the Lockheed Martin profits rolling. I'm searching for one area of privatization that has worked. I can't find any.

 

And you talk about these guys supporting standard GOP policies. Max no one voted for Peter Roskam to get rid of the SALT and limit property tax deductions. I can confirm many people in his district including many republicans calling and complaining when this went on. So why didn't he listen? The same happened in New Jersey, NY, California. THey could have all FOUGHT to keep these deductions in place for their voters so why didn't they?  That led me to the point that Paul Ryan is to blame not Trump.

 

As for Medicare for all, the Koch funded study also showed non governmental healthcare would cost even more than the billions cited from the article you referenced over the next 10 years.  Taxes go up? How many employers do you think would be more than willing to put more into the social security tax if it frees them from having to provide healthcare themselves.  It also frees employees who are no longer required to be indebted to an employer due to healthcare. And it also allows us to be equally competitive with international businesses, since most countries provide gvmt healthcare.

 

As for trickle down, this economic failure has been tried many times over the past 100 plus years, and where and when has it succeeded? Kansas cut taxes to bare bones under Brownbeck, road and schools crumbling to the point where the voters finally demanded new legislators who actually increased taxes and overrode Brownbeck's veto.

 

If you want to point to the Clinton's, the economy was booming then partially due to tax increases Bush put in place and the tech boom fueled a good part of that. But as to where we are today, I believe Neoliberalism has led to where we are and where the world is today. It's led to massive wealth inequality across the liberal democratic world and the rise of nationalism is a reaction to this. Add in corruption as what happened in Brazil as well. We are seeing wages increase a tad, but it doesn't account for increased costs in gasoline, healthcare, mortgage rates, etc.. And it has done nothing to improve the wage gap, it's only gotten larger. The Oligarchs want us peasants fighting over scraps so they can continue to rape and pillage our tax dollars for themselves. Their taxcuts go no where except back into their own pockets. The only way taxcuts work is by giving them to the middle class who spends the extra money they have, fueling our consumer driven economy.

 

Sorry for the belated response, as I was unable to have the time to reply until now.

 

I know that the right-wing talking point about Robert Byrd is now a tired old trope, but resonated with me prior to the Trump Era. I certainly believe that dinosaurs like Byrd and Hollings would not be tolerated in today's Democratic Party, and I give the Democrats credit for criticizing several of their old icons after a re-examination of their racist histories. (The most obvious example of this is how Woodrow Wilson is pretty much universally despised by liberals. Not too long ago, his racist views were seldom if ever mentioned, and he was widely admired for his progressive economic programs and foreign policy positions.) As I alluded to earlier, I am bothered by the level of influence that Al Sharpton has in the Democratic Party. But more than anything else, the fact that Hillary seemed to be given a pass for her 2008 statements (which were worse than Bill’s, IMO) convinced me that the Democrats were little better than Republicans on the issue of race (prior to Trump’s rise).

 

Obviously, Trump’s rise opened my eyes to the extent of the GOP’s racism problem. I long knew about the Southern Strategy and Lee Atwater (as you mentioned), but the racist rhetoric Trump employed is far more overt, to the point where no conservative who is intellectually honest with himself can deny that Trump and a sizable portion of his supporters are racists. (I do not believe that all Trump supporters are racist by any stretch of the imagination. Trump is a world-class conman, and he managed to dupe enough people into believing that he would solve their problems.). Also, in spite of their appeals to the white grievance crowd, previous Republican presidents could boast about some accomplishments in the area of race. Richard Nixon, for example, oversaw the successful desegregation of public schools (some 15 years after Brown v. Board of Education) and also pushed for affirmative action programs. Ronald Reagan signed into law the Simpson–Mazzoli Act. And George W. Bush urged all Americans to be tolerant towards Muslims in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. In contrast to all those examples, we now have a presidency in which the white nationalists are in control of the agenda.

 

I know that you asked about the specific items of the pre-Trump GOP agenda with which I agreed, so I’ll tell you. For one thing, I am strongly pro-life, which puts me at odds with the vast majority of Democrats. I also believe that premarital sex and adultery are wrong and need to be strongly discouraged. I saw the GOP as the party that defended traditional moral values, particularly in light of how the Democrats excused Bill Clinton’s moral failings. Obviously, it goes without saying that any politician who aligns himself with Donald Trump forever loses the right to lecture about morality. I feel completely duped by so many “conservatives,” but that doesn’t change the sincerity of my own beliefs.

 

In the 1990s, I feel that GOP mayors such as Rudy Giuliani and Richard Riordan did a tremendous job bringing down crime and changing the fortunes of urban America. Giuliani, in particular, was somebody who I really admired. Not only was he a successful crime fighter, but he cleaned up the filth in Times Square and served as such a tremendous source of strength in the aftermath of 9/11. It is beyond sad to see the person he has become in recent years (I’m honestly not sure if he changed or if he is just now showing his true colors), and I have little doubt that he’ll be best remembered for his erratic behavior as a Trump sycophant as opposed to his accomplishments as mayor.

 

When it comes to foreign policy, there was also a lot that I liked about the GOP. Reagan and Bush 41 had an aggressive anti-communist stance and deserve a lot of the credit for the Soviet Union’s demise. Though the War in Iraq was a horrendous mistake, the surge that occurred in the final two years of Bush 43’s presidency was the right thing to do, and John McCain deserves a lot of credit for advocating for it. Had he won the presidency in 2008, I believe that Iraq would be in much better shape today. I know that Mitt Romney made a lot of cringeworthy comments during the 2012 campaign, but he showed tremendous foresight when he said that Russia was our number one geopolitical foe; at the time, President Obama mocked Romney by saying that “the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” Given what happened during the 2012 campaign, I felt that the Democrats were slow to recognize the threat posed by Putin. Of course, the roles of the two parties are now completely reversed, and now you have Trump and his GOP enablers currying favor with Putin. The two parties have also recently reversed themselves on the issue of free trade, which had been another issue that attracted me to the GOP.

 

Finally, on the issue of economics, I’m not a supply-sider by any means. But I do feel that tax cuts are appropriate during times of recession in order to jumpstart the economy; during times of economic prosperity and war, I would favor increasing taxes on the wealthy in order to pay down the deficit. Obviously, this stance puts me at odds with the pre-Trump GOP, but my strong opposition to Bernie Sanders’ tax plan puts me at odds with many in the Democratic base. Regarding the new tax bill (which you alluded to), I would have opposed it on the grounds that (1) it would hurt our deficit and (2) the reduced taxes aren’t needed at this present time because of the good economy. However, I don’t believe that the cap on the SALT deduction was the primary reason why so many GOP Congressman just lost their jobs. Certainly it didn’t help, but there were other factors, such as the fact that so many of these incumbents lost touch with their constituents and didn’t know how to run in a competitive race. But more than anything else, Republicans lost these seats because affluent & highly educated suburban voters (who were once the bread and butter of the GOP coalition) dislike Trump and his white nationalist agenda.

6 hours ago, JaneAusten said:

I guess my point was how big a price would any of these people paid at the polls if they strongly held to their convictions and reran. Costello announced he was not running and Charlie Dent left. But I think my point is that maybe some of these folks would have gotten beaten anyway. Their own tax bill was a flop, Americans apparently in swing districts, districts filled with more educated republicans like in the Illinois 6th knew the bill hurt them. What reason did people like Roskam,, Randy Hultgren in Illinois,  Faso in New York, MacArthur in New Jersey, the many GOP congresspeople in California support a bill they knew would hurt their constitutents and drive up the deficit to astronomical amounts.  Trump is a disgusting pig and no, aligning themselves with him would have hurt them more(Hultgren was actually at. Trump rally in Illinois before the election, a candidate Trump supported and he lost). But there is a deeper issue I don’t see a lot of republicans or former republicans acknowledge. That this started years ago,

 

For all the faults democrats have, and there are many as the endless chastising by the media tells us, I still don’t believe the insurgency is anywhere near as bad as what the Tea Party did. For all the crowing about how the democrats can’t go far left, very few of them won races. And Before I hear about Beto and Gillum,and Abrams, these folks are not far left, they support common sense policies. And yes Medicare for All is a common sense policy even supported by 55% of republicans. Or maybe the compromise becomes giving people a public option to purchase. And I haven’t heard one of them, including Beto who’s from El Paso, talk about open borders. And reforming ICE is not radical, it’s a necessity, especially since now ICE is claiming they are not responsible for their employees for sexual abusing detainees, because their situations are not like they are in prison(prisoners are protected), so it must be mutual consent. 

 

Why should they they be mad at Trump. He’s doing what he always does, makes it about him. Even one of those articles you posted indicates Ryan refused to bring their bill to a vote. And that piece Carl posted from The NY Times was excellent and showed the disarray with the GOP and how disciplined the democrats have been this time, and Pelosi deserves a lot of that credit. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell deserve much of the blame. And before people start crowing about the senate, it’s likely the senate might gain 2 seats. Is that supposed to be a huge success for the best map they’ve had in over 100 years. They lost Montana, Ohio, and Michigan we’ll see how republicans next election do in places,like Colorado and Maine and Arizona and Iowa.

 

Jane, I'm in full agreement with you that more conservatives opposed to Trump need to publicly acknowledge the factors that caused the party to devolve into its current state. That doesn't mean retroactively agreeing with Democratic policy positions, but it does mean recognizing that the GOP has had a long history of appealing to white resentment voters. I can't speak for anybody else, but there were several reasons why I was able to justify staying in the GOP prior to the Trump Era in spite of the history of appealing to white resentment. First, there was the obvious fact that I agreed (and still agree) with much of the GOP platform (pre-Trump). Second, I didn't realize how many people in the GOP are white nationalists; but after Trump's nomination, it should be evident to anybody that the GOP has a serious racism problem. Third, even though I was aware of the GOP’s history of appealing to white resentment voters, I was (and still am) upset over the Democrat’s recent history of appealing to black resentment voters by embracing figures such as Al Sharpton. (I’m not in any way suggesting that the black racism is equivalent to white racism, given the history of the country. But aside from those on the far-left who believe that only members of the majority can be racists, most would acknowledge that there are individuals of every skin color who are bigoted against individuals of other races.) And finally, I found it hypocritical for Democrats to criticize the GOP for appealing to white racists when it was only until very recently that Democrats weren’t willing to capitalize on such appeals if it benefited them politically. It would be one thing if all the white racists suddenly left the Democratic Party in 1964, but that’s not what happened. For starters, these same voters consistently supported Democrats in all races other than presidential elections prior to 1994. There were also Democrats in prominent positions in the 2000s—such as Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings—who had reprehensible racial histories. But most hypocritical, IMO, was how the Democratic base seems to have forgotten just how ugly Hillary’s own 2008 presidential bid was. So when you put all of the factors I mentioned in this paragraph together, I hope that folks here can somewhat understand why I felt comfortable being part of the GOP prior to Trump’s rise.

 

On an entirely different matter, the Democratic Party is far more liberal than it was 20 years ago. One may not believe that today’s Democratic Party is far-left or even liberal, but it’s hard to dispute that it has moved in a dramatically leftward direction relative to where it was when WJC was president. Back in the 1990s, you had a Democratic POUTS who claimed that “the era of big government is over” and signed into law GOP bills such as welfare reform. Flash forward to 2016, and you have a Democratic Party in which Bernie Sanders becomes a major contender for the nomination. And I am very much opposed to much of the current Democratic platform. It’s one thing to reform ICE, but you now have Democrats who are calling for its abolition. Many liberals also support a $15 minimum wage which would place an enormous burden on small-to-medium sized businesses and almost certainly lead to a rise in prices. And medicare for all is also a proposal that has serious drawbacks:

 

"Kenneth Thorpe, a health policy professor at Emory University in Atlanta, authored one of the earlier studies and says the Mercatus analysis reinforces them.

 

 

20 minutes ago, JaneAusten said:

How the heck would you know they were anti Trump Republicans. Did Costello step up once to denounce Trump? Did any of the rest of them support protecting the Mueller investigation? If they did they should be mad at Paul Ryan for refusing to bring that legislation to a vote.

 

Peter Roskam was one of the people called out. His district is close to me and was a suburban red district. But many of these districts have been turning purple. The biggest problem with Roskam was no town halls in 8 years, no dialogue with constituents, he helped craft a taxbill he knew would hurt people in his district a lot( limitation of prop tax deduction and removal of SALT deductions) and then lying about supporting PEC’s when many in the district knew it was a, lie. Maybe they should question how their party turned into this (it started with the TEA party) and why they didn’t do something sooner. I always felt Boehner cowtowed to the Tea Party too much, and honestly he could have passed legislation easily if he used a coalition of moderate republicans and moderate democrats.

 

Jane, I can't vouch for every single representative that Trump called out by name, but Costello has been sincere in his opposition to Trump's corruption and divisive rhetoric. (I realize that he's supported policies that Trump advocated, but that's simply because most of those policies are little different from those that would have been proposed by a generic Republican POTUS. The fact that he supports these policies doesn't make his personal revulsion to Trump any less genuine.) FYI, Costello's anti-Trump stance isn't something that he just made public this past week:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/18/politics/ryan-costello-vladimir-putin-summit-cnntv/index.html

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/29/pennsylvania-blames-trump-rhetoric-945321

 

And Costello has had the courage to support the Mueller investigation:

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/17/mueller-protection-bill-supporters-528390

While it's great that there will finally be a chamber of Congress that will investigate Trump, one unfortunate aspect of Tuesday's elections is that the House GOP caucus is even Trumpier than before, since the relative few GOP House members who weren't a part of Cult 45 either retired or got defeated. I didn't see anybody talk about this, but in his post-election press conference, Trump was practically gleeful that certain House Republicans were defeated and mentioned several by name:

 

https://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/11/trump_blasts_gop_candidates_who_lost_mia_love_gave_me_no_love.html

 

All this was too much for retiring Representative Ryan Costello of Pennsylvania, who called Trump out with this tweet:

 

 

21 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

 

I think she will be more liberal than she was as a Congresswoman (if she is elected) but probably still very cautious, especially since Arizona is not all that liberal a state. I think it is moving in a more moderate conservative direction (or maybe I should say moving back there as it seemed to be that type of state in Sandra Day O'Connor's era). I think that she was fortunate to run in the Trump era as even though Trump won Arizona in 2016 I don't get the impression that part of the US is hugely fond of him. 

 

Sinema has been criticized for years for putting on a mask for voters. Frankly I'm surprised it has worked, but Arizona is a unique state, and frankly McSally doesn't seem especially likeable. 

 

One positive is that she has yet to join in with the pot-banging and hysteria about the election, to the anger of Trump and friends. Probably because she is hoping to just be appointed to McCain's seat when Jon Kyl leaves. 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/09/sinema-mcsally-arizona-senate-race-982562

 

Carl, I agree that the reason why McSally isn't acting hysterical and making up all sorts of bogus accusations (like Rick Scott is currently doing) is most likely because she is hoping to be appointed to the McCain seat should Kyl decide to leave. And in the event that Kyl chooses to serve for another two years, McSally very much wants to run in 2020 (for the remainder of McCain's term), and looking like a sore loser would pretty much kill any hope she has of becoming a U.S. Senator.

 

On a different topic, there are definitely a lot of people who would disagree with my theory that Arizona will become a blue state in the near future. Certainly, one can point to the fact that John McCain won his last Senate race by 13% in 2016 and also to the fact that Governor Doug Ducey won re-election by 15 percentage points as evidence that Arizona is still favorable territory for Republicans. However, McCain was a deeply entrenched incumbent and Ducey had the huge benefit of running for re-election during a booming economy. By contrast, a very ominous sign for Republicans is that Trump won AZ by a paltry 3.55%, which was the worst showing any GOP presidential nominee had in AZ since Bob Dole in 1996. And with Trump and the GOP doing all they can to antagonize Latino voters, I don't see how Arizona doesn't continue to trend Democratic.