Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[megaplayboy]

[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?

Clinton's not running any more. The future of the party is in flux. That said, my point remains valid. If you knew there was a candidate who planned to implement an agenda that would be a living nightmare for you, and another one you found distasteful but infinitely preferable to the former, and then you discovered that the chances of the former winning had increased considerably in the final week...and yet you chose to vote 3rd party in protest or stay home in protest of not having a better choice than the latter, you've really got no right to be shocked and dismayed that the living nightmare won, because you did absolutely nothing to prevent that from happening.

[Old Man]

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.

Best case scenario is that Trump governs center-right and stops the worst of the GOP establishment's efforts because he hates them and owes them nothing.

 

Worst case scenario is he rolls over or gets bought out by the establishment and rubber stamps everything that crosses his desk, while paralyzing the military and NATO in the face of Russian and Chinese expansionism, and crashing the economy in the way that many of his trade and immigration policies are certain to do.

[megaplayboy]

Best case scenario is that Trump governs center-right and stops the worst of the GOP establishment's efforts because he hates them and owes them nothing.

 

Worst case scenario is he rolls over or gets bought out by the establishment and rubber stamps everything that crosses his desk, while paralyzing the military and NATO in the face of Russian and Chinese expansionism, and crashing the economy in the way that many of his trade and immigration policies are certain to do.

Yeah, the worse case scenario is that the worst policy ideas of Trump and the GOP both get implemented, after McConnell nukes the legislative filibuster, and the Dems don't have their act together enough to win the 2018 midterm. Then we could be looking at the Great Trumpression. Not to mention race relations that make us long for the peaceful summer of 1968.

[Netzilla]

My point remains that relying on voters to vote for you because the other guy is wosrse is a bad strategy. You can't take that for granted. Doing so cost this election the same as it has cost previous elections.

 

Likewise, blaming the voters and accusing them of stupidity and apathy actively hurts your chances going forward because it alienates them.

 

If the Dems want to win back Congress in 2018, and I hope they do, they need to figure out what they could have done different. They need to reach out to the voters they lost and ask why they lost them. Simply writing them off as not knowing what's in their best interest is simply asking to lose again.

[megaplayboy]

My point remains that relying on voters to vote for you because the other guy is wosrse is a bad strategy. You can't take that for granted. Doing so cost this election the same as it has cost previous elections.

 

Likewise, blaming the voters and accusing them of stupidity and apathy actively hurts your chances going forward because it alienates them.

 

If the Dems want to win back Congress in 2018, and I hope they do, they need to figure out what they could have done different. They need to reach out to the voters they lost and ask why they lost them. Simply writing them off as not knowing what's in their best interest is simply asking to lose again.

That goes both ways, though. Voters who went for Nader in 2000 had taken a hard look in the mirror by the time 2004 came around. Nader got a much lower percentage that year.

[Netzilla]

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.

The voters we're talking about are the third-party voters, not the Trump supporters. I've not seen any evidence of progressives having turned out for Trump.

[megaplayboy]

Only around 1-3% of the electorate are "hardcore" third party voters. Stein wound up getting 0.7% of the vote, and Johnson 3.3 IIRC. Not sure what McMullin's total was, but it can't have been high. Of those who identify as "independent", most actually are generally reliable R or D voters. The percentage up for grabs in an election is actually fairly small nowadays.

[Clonus]

[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?

 

There is nothing they could have done which would have been more effective than what they did, except "find a less vulnerable more charming candidate"

[megaplayboy]

I am curious to see whether there was a hidden "gender penalty" for Clinton. The fact that Trump got a higher than expected % of latino votes, particularly latino males, might be related to latino culture being fairly patriarchal in nature. That's just speculation, but I do wonder how we'd suss that out.

[pinecone]

There is nothing they could have done which would have been more effective than what they did, except "find a less vulnerable more charming candidate"

I think thats the solution in a nutshell..."Find good(better) candidates"

[Old Man]

I think thats the solution in a nutshell..."Find good(better) candidates"

Well, the system is stacked against this. The job sucks. It doesn't pay anything and it involves making difficult value decisions in the face of vague information, fickle constituents, and almost violent opposition. There are long meetings and speeches, there are long dry pieces of legislation to read. You have to reapply every four years at best. You can't accept gifts from anyone, not even food. You have to live in a reclaimed swamp full of arrogant people in suits, and only visit home occasionally, whereupon you have more meetings to attend and speeches to give.

[Lord Mhoram]

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

 

This is how I view my duty to vote: I'm not worried about "realpolitik" - I'm not worried about who can win, or who can't. Who has national support or who does not. My vote is my conscience, choosing the single candidate that I feel that most exemplifies my goals for the country, and that is a person I can, in good faith, trust. I don't vote to win, I vote for the single best candidate. It's not a wasted vote, it's how I can live with myself with a field of despicable choices. I've voted for third party presidential candidates twice in my life, and am proud of that fact.

[megaplayboy]

I vote with the well-being of the people of the country in mind, particularly the most vulnerable. Who will be the best president to help the most vulnerable, and if that option is not available, who will do the least harm? Whether the best candidate has a realistic chance of being elected is also a very practical consideration. I don't want to let down people I care about by wasting my vote. So, realistically, that's almost always going to come down to the two major party candidates. Sometimes, it's who's the best, and others, it's who does the least harm. I see voting as a practical decision. Occasionally we get lucky and our ideals are on the ballot. Most of the time we're not so lucky, but our principles and interests are still at stake, as are those of people who matter to us. Some of those people are differently situated, so we have to think beyond how an outcome will affect us personally. How will it affect my friends, my family, my neighbors, my coworkers and people in my city and state and country and world? I am not an island. I am defined, in part, by the people I am connected to. Everyone is. So why should voting be a selfish or self-centered decision? Sure, I think about how it affects me, but that's not my only consideration. YMMV.

[Lord Mhoram]

I vote with the well-being of the people of the country in mind, particularly the most vulnerable. Who will be the best president to help the most vulnerable, and if that option is not available, who will do the least harm? Whether the best candidate has a realistic chance of being elected is also a very practical consideration. I don't want to let down people I care about by wasting my vote. So, realistically, that's almost always going to come down to the two major party candidates. Sometimes, it's who's the best, and others, it's who does the least harm. I see voting as a practical decision. Occasionally we get lucky and our ideals are on the ballot. Most of the time we're not so lucky, but our principles and interests are still at stake, as are those of people who matter to us. Some of those people are differently situated, so we have to think beyond how an outcome will affect us personally. How will it affect my friends, my family, my neighbors, my coworkers and people in my city and state and country and world? I am not an island. I am defined, in part, by the people I am connected to. Everyone is. So why should voting be a selfish or self-centered decision? Sure, I think about how it affects me, but that's not my only consideration. YMMV.

 

I can see that point of view.

 

I've found (at least personally) that everyone that is worried about "the cause" or what is best for all ends up caring more about their cause that what it will do to actual people. Not saying that is you, by any means - just those I have met personally.  When I vote, I don't necessarily vote who would be best for me, but one who I think would do the best to help the country... if they can't actually win doesn't enter into my consideration. I choose the best I can among the choices available.

[megaplayboy]

I can see that point of view.

 

I've found (at least personally) that everyone that is worried about "the cause" or what is best for all ends up caring more about their cause that what it will do to actual people. Not saying that is you, by any means - just those I have met personally.  When I vote, I don't necessarily vote who would be best for me, but one who I think would do the best to help the country... if they can't actually win doesn't enter into my consideration. I choose the best I can among the choices available.

No, I tend to worry about practical real world outcomes. I tend to support a particular ideology/philosophy because I think it creates the best outcomes in practice. But if someone can suggest an alternative approach and prove it works or has promise, I'll give it a shot. I see voting as a practical choice first, guided by moral considerations, not vice versa.

[Lord Mhoram]

No, I tend to worry about practical real world outcomes. I tend to support a particular ideology/philosophy because I think it creates the best outcomes in practice. But if someone can suggest an alternative approach and prove it works or has promise, I'll give it a shot. I see voting as a practical choice first, guided by moral considerations, not vice versa.

Thanks for clarifying, that makes things much more clear.

[Pattern Ghost]

I just have one thing to say . . . we need to look to the future . . .

 

 

 

 

Joke deleted. I *just* posited the stupidest possible identity for Prometheus possible during Arrow . . . and it turned out to be true. So, in the interest of not wanting any more jokes to come true, the GM reference is now gone.

 

 

 

[Badger]

Only around 1-3% of the electorate are "hardcore" third party voters. Stein wound up getting 0.7% of the vote, and Johnson 3.3 IIRC. Not sure what McMullin's total was, but it can't have been high. Of those who identify as "independent", most actually are generally reliable R or D voters. The percentage up for grabs in an election is actually fairly small nowadays.

 

Though, those Johnson probably picked were probably more disenfranchised conservatives than liberals (with Stein vice-versa).  If so, what you're saying doesn't amount to what yo think it means.  Quite, possibly if not for 3rd-partys Trump takes the popular too. 

[Badger]

I am curious to see whether there was a hidden "gender penalty" for Clinton. The fact that Trump got a higher than expected % of latino votes, particularly latino males, might be related to latino culture being fairly patriarchal in nature. That's just speculation, but I do wonder how we'd suss that out.

 

Kaine's theory.  As a conservative, I hope the Dems run with that theory.  Make it all the more easier, when/if a GOP candidate I like pops up. 

[薔薇語]

I am curious to see whether there was a hidden "gender penalty" for Clinton.

Nope, there wasn't.

 

Soar.

[megaplayboy]

Though, those Johnson probably picked were probably more disenfranchised conservatives than liberals (with Stein vice-versa).  If so, what you're saying doesn't amount to what yo think it means.  Quite, possibly if not for 3rd-partys Trump takes the popular too.

It's possible. A lot of stuff to analyze. There is at least some evidence that voter ID laws and purges of election rolls and the reduction in available polling places in Southern states reduced the black vote by several hundred thousand. Clinton's margins of defeat in several key states were less than 100k apiece.

[megaplayboy]

Nope, there wasn't.

 

Soar.

Dude. Seriously. You don't know that for sure. Dial back the certitude a bit, please.

[Blue]

I started to think that our only hope was that he'd pick people who were appropriate to the many, many jobs out there that need done.

 

So naturally all his lists are punctuated by names like Palin, Christie, and Carson!

 

I didn't think it could get worse.  But then...

[Badger]

This is how I view my duty to vote: I'm not worried about "realpolitik" - I'm not worried about who can win, or who can't. Who has national support or who does not. My vote is my conscience, choosing the single candidate that I feel that most exemplifies my goals for the country, and that is a person I can, in good faith, trust. I don't vote to win, I vote for the single best candidate. It's not a wasted vote, it's how I can live with myself with a field of despicable choices. I've voted for third party presidential candidates twice in my life, and am proud of that fact.

 

I do the best I can with what I am given to work with.  A politician has to make some effort to win my vote.  And scaring me away from their opponent doesn't count.  (in fact with things that worry me, I had as much reason to vote for Trump as Clinton, if we want to go there)

[薔薇語]

Dude. Seriously. You don't know that for sure. Dial back the certitude a bit, please.

The data is publically available. I even posted some of it upthread. If there was a gender gap it was remarkably minor. So minor as to not move the election.

 

 

Throwing around loose accusations of sexism is not good unless you have data. So, where's the data?

 

Soar.