More modern AH

From time to time, an incident outside of the control of the "important" historical personages, carries long-term consequences for history. A good example would be Archduke Franz Ferdinand's driver taking a wrong turn, which resulted in WWI, which begat WWII, which begat the Cold War, etc.

Still, one can argue the political climate in Europe made for some sort of armed conflict to happen eventually.

So let's look at another incident in more recent times: Hinckley's attempt to assassinate Ronald Reagan.

Why? Because the sympathy Reagan received for the resulting ordeal clearly impacted the rest of his political career.

Had there been no attempt on his life, or had Hinckley been foiled before he could fire a shot, would history had been different?

Perhaps. What other things might have changed? Would the Democrats have picked a stronger candidate for the 84 election? I mean, the VP of an unloved, failed President is not exactly ideal, and see how badly Mondale lost. It's hard to pick a winner among the field that year. Certainly not Ted Kennedy with all the baggage he carried. It's also hard to imagine someone ever doing worse than Mondale did.

What would have happened when the Iran-Contra scandal broke? What would Gorbachev have done differently had Reagan enjoyed less domestic support? The Soviets had a field day with the Iran thing as it was. Would Bush the elder have been elected? Again the Democrats fielded a weak, un-charismatic candidate that year, though perhaps Senator Hart was more to blame for that.

One can see all kinds of possible scenarios.

You should follow through on that thought Nareed. Is it impossible that the unbridled hate and endless attempts at "political assassination" of Trump might end up back firing and create sympathy for him?

Quote: kenarman

Is it impossible that the unbridled hate and endless attempts at "political assassination" of Trump might end up back firing and create sympathy for him?

He's a hateful little troll, and the most despicable man ever to get in way over his head. He's too dumb and arrogant to even know what he doesn't know, or to do what he needs to do. he hasn't gotten it through his thick skull that he's unpopular, and therefore needs to reach out to the side that loathes him. Instead, he's kept on blaming all his failures, and those of his party, on them.

Sympathy?´ Don't make me laugh.

Quote: Nareed

He's a hateful little troll, and the most despicable man ever to get in way over his head. He's too dumb and arrogant to even know what he doesn't know, or to do what he needs to do. he hasn't gotten it through his thick skull that he's unpopular, and therefore needs to reach out to the side that loathes him. Instead, he's kept on blaming all his failures, and those of his party, on them.

Sympathy?´ Don't make me laugh.

Not everyone feels as you do Nareed. I know it is a poll you discredit but the fact remains that Rasmussen has him at 50% the highest rating he has had for months. The overall average of the polls has also crept up lately. It might just be the constant attacks are having the opposite effect of those that are making them.

Quote: kenarman

Not everyone feels as you do Nareed.

Some people are idiots.

Seriously. If you cannot perceive the rank incompetence Trump has shown during his time in office, you're either blind or deluded.

Anyway, there are other times when sympathy has helped keep someone in office. Reagan was an effective politician and, more importantly, knew how to communicate his policies. I think he fairly earned the title of the Great Communicator, but also that he had good speech writers.

Bush the younger was none of these things.

He reacted as well as could be expected to the 9/11 attacks, and received a great deaL of public sympathy and support. So much so, that the audience booed Michael Moore at the Oscars when he criticized the president. He also avoided the blame.

But then he went and blew it by invading Iraq.

Bush the elder, in contrast, had to manage the collapse of the Soviet Union and its European satellites. He did a remarkably good job. Where he almost shined, though, was in the Gulf War. He did extremely well building a broad coalition and achieving a limited objective. He did badly with the aftermath, especially the calls for a coup which the army ignored but groups of Iraqi citizens didn't.

Unfortunately, he was undone by a mild recession.

My reading, though, is he wasn't particularly popular, even after the Gulf War. He won the election mostly on Dukakis' weakness and inexperience, not to mention his lack of warmth. then the Democrats misread the situation, and few ran for 1992 because they'd been against the war, and they thought Bush the elder was invincible. Had they read things better, no way Clinton wins the primaries in 92. More likely someone like Cuomo.

That would have led to a vastly different present.

Quote: Nareed

Some people are idiots.

Seriously. If you cannot perceive the rank incompetence Trump has shown during his time in office, you're either blind or deluded.

My point isn't whether Trump is incompetent or not. It is that the unprecedented vicious attacks may be having the opposite effect than that those that are making them desire. Consider the scenario of being nice to him and let him bask in the glory of being president. He might then spend even more time on the golf course and just let his cabinet run the country in a much better manner than it is now being run. We can then all laugh at his tweets since we know where the real decisions are coming from.

Quote: kenarman

It is that the unprecedented vicious attacks may be having the opposite effect than that those that are making them desire.

I don't think so. (translation: hell, no!)

Quote: kenarman

My point isn't whether Trump is incompetent or not. It is that the unprecedented vicious attacks may be having the opposite effect than that those that are making them desire.

Based on Trump's own pattern, you aren't nice to someone until they show conciliation or complete fawning adoration.

Quote: kenarman

My point isn't whether Trump is incompetent or not. It is that the unprecedented vicious attacks may be having the opposite effect than that those that are making them desire.

It's a basic law of physics that every action results in a re-action.

In the House election of 2016 63,173,815 people voted for Republican candidates, and 61,776,554 voted for Democratic candidates. That is roughly a 1% difference.
In the Senate elections of 2016 40,402,790 people voted for Republican candidates, and 51,496,682 voted for Democratic candidates.

Although it looks like 11 million more people voted for Democratic Senate candidates than Democratic candidates, remember that California runs two Democratic candidates against each other. The 12 million people who voted in that election had to vote for a Democratic candidate.

We sometimes forget how evenly the country is divided. Hard attacks will always result in some kind of political reaction.

Quote: CNN

Clinton expresses regret for saying 'half' of Trump supporters are 'deplorables'
By Dan Merica and Sophie Tatum, CNN Mon September 12, 2016
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-basket-of-deplorables/index.html