Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon

Recommended Posts

Let's pretend I lived in Maryland. This says that instead of counting my vote, and the votes of other Marylanders, toward choosing the President, the State wants to use votes cast in places like in Texas, California, Florida, and New York to choose the President.

 

Way to surrender your sovereign rights as a State of the Union, Maryland.

 

Why would ANYONE think this is a good idea? :stupid:

Let's pretend you're a red voter in a deep blue state, or vice versa. Your vote for president might make a difference one time every 40 years or so. Under a popular vote rule, it always counts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think that politicians running for president can now safely skip visiting Maryland, if they ever bothered to before.

 

EDIT: Though I suppose they didn't as Old Man points out

And just to be clear, the compact only takes effect once 270 EVs worth of states join it. Until then Maryland will continue to play along with the EC like everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You ducked the question, in my view. Do they care about what happens to other members of the political coalition, or not? The harm that will be done is arguably greater than that from any of the things you mentioned. Is it because it's not happening to them directly?

First they came for the Muslims, and I said nothing, because I'm not a Muslim.

Next they came for the Latinos, and I said nothing, because I'm not a Latino.

Then they came for African-Americans, and again I said nothing, because I'm not African American.

Finally they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

I did not duck any question.  Part of my point this whole time is that voters are not part of a 'political coalition' unless they choose to be so.  Acting otherwise is not a winning strategy.  My point is that blaming Clinton's loss on the voters is counter-productive.  Basically, I believe that you're starting from a flawed premise.

 

Remember, you responded to a point I made about how the Democratic leaders and the media are trying to pin this loss on the voters rather than looking at themselves for why they failed to win over those voters.  Do you really think that the Democrats can win over voters for the next election by calling those who failed to vote for Hillary stupid or apathetic?  Democrats are already painted as intellectual elitists who don't care about the common voter.  Dismissing those who failed to vote for Hillary as stupid or apathetic only reinforces this image.  It would be better for the party to look at how the campaign failed to win over voters and improve on that for the next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, Hillary probably should have pushed her policies more where possible rather than running on her opponent's shortcomings.

 

This, this right here is a big part of what I've been trying to say (in a far too verbose fashion). 

 

For the past couple months, the Democratic strategy seems to have been to treat Trump as a joke rather than try to play up Clinton's strengths.  That, combined with a track record that's more centrist than progressive is what made Clinton look like the establishment candidate that the public has been claiming they hate for years now.

 

Then, when they loose, they immediately start looking to blame the voters rather than look at how they failed to make their candidate appealing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And all of that got zero play in the media.  None.  It didn't come up in the debates, it didn't get reported in the news.  All we got was emailboating and pneumoniaghazi.

 

That said, Hillary probably should have pushed her policies more where possible rather than running on her opponent's shortcomings.

 

Since there was absolutely nothing exciting about her policies not so much.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not duck any question. Part of my point this whole time is that voters are not part of a 'political coalition' unless they choose to be so. Acting otherwise is not a winning strategy. My point is that blaming Clinton's loss on the voters is counter-productive. Basically, I believe that you're starting from a flawed premise.

 

Remember, you responded to a point I made about how the Democratic leaders and the media are trying to pin this loss on the voters rather than looking at themselves for why they failed to win over those voters. Do you really think that the Democrats can win over voters for the next election by calling those who failed to vote for Hillary stupid or apathetic? Democrats are already painted as intellectual elitists who don't care about the common voter. Dismissing those who failed to vote for Hillary as stupid or apathetic only reinforces this image. It would be better for the party to look at how the campaign failed to win over voters and improve on that for the next time.

The exact same failure analysis would be merited for the Sanders campaign. If people want a candidate in that mold, they need to figure out why he failed to connect with enough base voters in the primaried. The DNC may have put their thumb on the scale, but if Sanders had more aggressively broadened his appeal, he could have taken it out of their hands. The primary reason he lost is because he failed to do that. If these disaffected voters want an inspiring candidate, they have to convince other voters who have both convergent and divergent interests to be inspired by them to. Coalition building is a two way street. Candidates do it, but voters can and should do it too. It's how things actually get done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess was some of the surrogates putting out feelers that Senator Sanders was sexist and racist didn't help his chances. Bernie Bros... Really? Secretary Clinton's was the US's version of 'campaign fear' from its inception.

 

On the ven diagram of voters, Secretary Clinton supporters could almost all get behind a left wing populist. But the Senator Sandes' supporters could not get behind a hawkish corportist. The DNC ruined their chances from the start.

 

Soar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The exact same failure analysis would be merited for the Sanders campaign. If people want a candidate in that mold, they need to figure out why he failed to connect with enough base voters in the primaried. The DNC may have put their thumb on the scale, but if Sanders had more aggressively broadened his appeal, he could have taken it out of their hands. The primary reason he lost is because he failed to do that.

Sure, Sanders should have reached more people. Did I ever say otherwise? Did I or anyone in the Sanders camp blame the voters for his failure to get the nomination?

 

If these disaffected voters want an inspiring candidate, they have to convince other voters who have both convergent and divergent interests to be inspired by them to. Coalition building is a two way street. Candidates do it, but voters can and should do it too. It's how things actually get done.

Once Clinton won the nomination it was the job of her campaign to get Bernie supporters to vote for her. They got some but not enough. Are you saying that's the voters' fault?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vote Entitlement is not a good thing. Simply sayIng "but he's worse" is just a play on "but Stacey hit me first, mom!* It is not endearing.

 

I voted third. I could not get behind a candidate who is anti immigration. I could not get behind one that put us in every single war in my lifetime. I could not get behind someone who has the temperament of a child. Nor one that risked war with Russia. I could not get behind someone who thinks our 2nd amendment rights are not subject to due processe. Nor ones that thought domestic mass spying was a legit use of power. I could not get behind someone who felt that Executive Orders were acceptable substitution for laws. I couldn't join a cause that uses racist language nor race baiting language. Couldn't join one that has destroyed student due processes protections on campus.

 

Secretary Clinton must earn support. We are not subjects to be drudged up once every four years. Treating the electorate like a mindless minion for your will does not work.

 

The Dem. party's expectation of compliance is vulgar. It as nonsensical as me saying "had only all you idiotic Clinton supporters voted Gov. Johnson, we wouldn't be in this mess. How dare you!"

 

People must be appealed to. The data is clear in its proof that Sec. Clinton's fear campaign (Fear Senator Sanders, fear Trump, fear Gov. Johnson, fear Dr. Stein) failed her and her party.

 

Soar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess was some of the surrogates putting out feelers that Senator Sanders was sexist and racist didn't help his chances. Bernie Bros... Really? Secretary Clinton's was the US's version of 'campaign fear' from its inception.

 

On the ven diagram of voters, Secretary Clinton supporters could almost all get behind a left wing populist. But the Senator Sandes' supporters could not get behind a hawkish corportist. The DNC ruined their chances from the start.

 

Soar.

Honestly, that's a really self-serving portrayal of how things went. Sanders' own staffers admitted he made multiple mistakes during the campaign. The biggest one was not reaching out to the non-white voters in the Democratic primary base(roughly half of all Democratic primary voters) early and, well, bigly. He handled his first couple interactions with BLM badly, and was stuck playing catchup with someone who was a known and trusted figure among those communities. Because Super Tuesday was so quickly after the first few primaries, and involved substantial numbers of non-white voters, Sanders was unable to improve his standing with black voters sufficiently to be competitive, and he fell way behind Clinton. The rest of the campaign followed a predictable pattern. Sanders won in mostly lily-white states and in caucus states, Clinton won in more diverse states(with the exception of Michigan). After she consolidated her win, Clinton treated Sanders with kid gloves, giving him all the time in the world to concede, while he was still running and taking shots at her. She also gave him plenty of influence over the party platform and revised her education plan to closely resemble his. She switched to opposing the TPP and wanting stronger regulation of wall street. Her Syria policy explicitly ruled out ground troops.

Lack of enthusiasm for Clinton may have been a factor, but what factors amplified that lack? RussiaHacks(aka WikiLeaks), James Frickin' Comey and the Letter of Doom, and the media's relentless obsession with her failure to notice a "c" deep in email chains for 3 emails, out of tens of thousands of non-classified emails received and sent on her private server(which Comey absolutely made the correct call on, and which he should then have shut up about, instead of editorializing entirely inappropriately). They hammered at the emails and created a false equivalence in a misguided effort to be "balanced", and brought a guy who was still on Trump's payroll to be a commentator at CNN. Meanwhile Trumpthulhu shambled towards the shore bit by bit, as the media treated his atrocity of a "campaign" as something remotely "normal". He lied, smeared and insulted with relative impunity, doing dozens of things that on their own would have ended a normal politician's career. People treated him as a protest vote against the status quo, or in some circles, a White Nationalist Messiah.

And, in spite of Clinton getting a couple million more votes than him, Trump won the election, and the whole system has gone into shock. Appropriately, I might add. I warned months ago that a Trump presidency would be a catastrophe of world-historic proportions. I hope I'm mistaken, but my instincts and observations tell me otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, Sanders should have reached more people. Did I ever say otherwise? Did I or anyone in the Sanders camp blame the voters for his failure to get the nomination?

 

Once Clinton won the nomination it was the job of her campaign to get Bernie supporters to vote for her. They got some but not enough. Are you saying that's the voters' fault?

I've enumerated above(in response to soar) all the steps she took to try to win over Sanders' supporters. I'm not clear on what else she could have done. She doesn't have a time machine, so if they have a bug up their beehives about something she did in the past, not much she can do now. She apologized for some things, changed her position on others, and committed to a very progressive policy agenda. It's not clear to me what else she could have said or done to win them over. She did quite a lot, frankly.

Were the voters paying attention when Trump released his 100 day agenda a few weeks back, and it read like progressives' nightmare fuel? Worried about fracking? Trump's gonna ramp it up all over the place! Climate change? Trump's pulling out of the UN climate fund. And on and on, a carnival of horrors.

Were they paying attention when the polls tightened up in the final week?

If they were self-proclaimed progressives, made themselves aware of Trump's policy proposals, and were aware of how close the election was in the final days, and still stayed home or voted third party(not as enduring support for a third party, but as a protest vote), and are now shocked and dismayed at the outcome, I have less than zero sympathy for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logically once 270 EVs worth of states join the compact the EC is effectively nullified. Still won't happen though. But the EC is precisely why individual votes are worth more in some states than in others.

 

The problem is in theory, the EC is done to prevent "let's gang up and b!tch slap South Dakota. And dump all our troubles in their front yard".

 

Actually the fun would happen if this is successful, and then the GOP wins the popular vote, despite likely losing the EC.  It would serve them right for their short-sightedness, and they'd be wailing for the EC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[snip]

My point is that the Clinton campaign seems more interested in deflecting blame than alayzing what they could have done differently. If they continue to do that, they will continue to lose.

 

If they were self-proclaimed progressives, made themselves aware of Trump's policy proposals, and were aware of how close the election was in the final days, and still stayed home or voted third party(not as enduring support for a third party, but as a protest vote), and are now shocked and dismayed at the outcome, I have less than zero sympathy for them.

How does blaming the voters help the Democrats going forward?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[snip]

My point is that the Clinton campaign seems more interested in deflecting blame than alayzing what they could have done differently. If they continue to do that, they will continue to lose.

 

How does blaming the voters help the Democrats going forward?

So much WIN right here.

 

Soar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voters, even Progressive voters, do not have to prioritize the same things you do. They do not have to believe the exact same way you do. They do not have to accept the campaign of fear. And as it turns out, they rejected it. Being upset that people do not subscribe to secretary Clinton's View out of pure fear of presidents elected Trumps review, is irresponsible.

 

Soar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does blaming the voters help the Democrats going forward?

It doesn't, of course. But explaining to third party voters not to waste their vote isn't blaming them, it's trying to up their game. Third party voters are the guy at the blackjack table who routinely hits on 20 and then wonders why he and the rest of the players are losing to the house. They're the guy who takes three-point shots whenever he gets the ball and wonders why his accuracy is low. I get that people don't like either candidate--none of us do, really. But you're still better off picking the least bad candidate, policywise.

 

We're not even a week in and there is serious talk of repealing Medicare, and do not for a second think that GOP voters are going to penalize the GOP if they do, because that is what the GOP voters want. Oh but Hillary is too uninspiring, I just can't bring myself to save Medicare, I'll vote for Giant Meteor instead. Or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voters, even Progressive voters, do not have to prioritize the same things you do. They do not have to believe the exact same way you do. They do not have to accept the campaign of fear. And as it turns out, they rejected it. Being upset that people do not subscribe to secretary Clinton's View out of pure fear of presidents elected Trumps review, is irresponsible.

 

Soar.

Or alternately, they embraced a campaign of fear. Fear of foreigners, fear of Islam, and fear of terrorism. If we are going to point out fear mongering in the last campaign, one candidate stands out and it's not Hillary Clinton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...