Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[megaplayboy]

2 new names in contention for Sec of State. 1. The current CEO of Exxon Mobil 2. The former CEO of Exxon Mobil

 

I wish I was making this up.

[Old Man]

So say we all.

[薔薇語]

By that logic the third parties should have immediately disbanded in utter disgrace, since 94% of the electorate rejected them outright.

Get out of here with that BS. The principal difference between you and I, Mega, is that I can recognize that the Libertarians have a lot of ground to make up in order to win. And to do that we actually have to find a good candidate and a good message to stand behind. I don't have to blame racist Republicans or Democrats. I don't have to blame unfair media treatment or what ever BS to excuse away why we lost - Stepping up and taking responsibility for the fact but there are things that were in our control and we failed on is enough. Integrity and Responsibility are virtues - not whining over a race that didn't happen or comparing dissimilar events (04 to now).

 

Soar.

[Iuz the Evil]

Get out of here with that BS. The principal difference between you and I, Mega, is that I can recognize that the Libertarians have a lot of ground to make up in order to win. And to do that we actually have to find a good candidate and a good message to stand behind. I don't have to blame racist Republicans or Democrats. I don't have to blame unfair media treatment or what ever BS to excuse away why we lost - Stepping up and taking responsibility for the fact but there are things that were in our control and we failed on is enough. Integrity and Responsibility are virtues - not whining over a race that didn't happen or comparing dissimilar events (04 to now).

 

Soar.

Interesting take. That's not what I'd have considered the principle difference between your positions, but good to hear your perspective.

[megaplayboy]

Get out of here with that BS. The principal difference between you and I, Mega, is that I can recognize that the Libertarians have a lot of ground to make up in order to win. And to do that we actually have to find a good candidate and a good message to stand behind. I don't have to blame racist Republicans or Democrats. I don't have to blame unfair media treatment or what ever BS to excuse away why we lost - Stepping up and taking responsibility for the fact but there are things that were in our control and we failed on is enough. Integrity and Responsibility are virtues - not whining over a race that didn't happen or comparing dissimilar events (04 to now).

 

Soar.

It's equally nonsensical to say "a majority of Americans rejected the candidate who got the most votes". Clinton(Bill) won in 1992 and 1996 with less than a majority...and the Republicans considered him less legitimate because he didn't win a majority of the vote. But at least he won with the most votes of the candidates running. Bush narrowly won in the Electoral College in 2004, but he had a fairly substantial 3 million vote margin in the popular vote. Trump won more EV than Bush...while losing the popular vote by nearly as many votes as Bush won by.

 

It's just weird to say a candidate lost because of "unpopularity" or "lack of charisma" when they happened to get a lot more votes than the winner. It sounds like a downright silly talking point, because it is. By that logic, the winner won because they were even less popular. Clinton lost for primarily tactical reasons, though there were also outside factors which were not helpful. She didn't lose because she was a terrible candidate. She won more votes than any candidate for president ever, with the exception of Obama in 2008. She lost because she didn't spend enough time protecting her "Blue wall" in the mid west.

[薔薇語]

Sec. Clinton failed to clinch the EC (the only race that matters despite your protests) and her popular vote total just makes her the least disliked - not favored. Thats like claiming the scimbag with the lowest bounty on his head at mos isle is the best.

 

The Rep can at least look at this cycle and see that they didn't lose ground from last time. The dems despite their faux win, lost ground in almost every demo. The Dems lost and lost hard in a cycle that they should have won. Tilting at windmills and making up moot arguments doesn't help. At least you have stopped calling everyone racist and sexist. So I guess that is step forward.

 

Soar.

[薔薇語]

There is some stupid fake news story going around that secretary Clinton has managed to get more votes than anyone else in history. This is not true. President Obama 4 years ago managed to pull in 66 million votes. That was with a smaller population total. Before that, he pulled in almost 70 million votes. And that was with an even smaller population total. Secretary Clinton has only pulled in around 6５ million votes with a greater pool.

 

Soar

[megaplayboy]

Sec. Clinton failed to clinch the EC (thr only race that matters despite your protests) and her popular vote total just makes her the least disliked - not favored. Thats like claiming the scimbag with the lowest bounty on his head at mos isle is the best.

 

The Rep can at least look at this cycle and see that they didn't lose ground from last time. The dems despite their faux win, lost ground in almost every demo. The Dems lost and lost hard in a cycle that they should have won. Tilting at windmills and making up moot arguments doesn't help. At least you have stopped calling everyone racist and sexist. So I guess that is step forward.

 

Soar.

Democrats picked up 2 Senate seats and 6 House seats. Trump got 1% less of the vote than Romney did. Trump won with a lower percentage of the non-white vote than any other recent winner. Winning what is effectively a third term with a candidate perceived as establishment/incumbent is also difficult. Trump did find enough white votes in the Rust Belt to eke out a win, but the fact that Clinton won the popular vote points up that the same demographic challenge which was pointed out in 2012 still exists for the GOP. The Dems do have to do more to turn out their base voters, but imo its a fool's errand to shift too many resources from getting out the existing base in greater numbers to trying to woo the elusive "white working class" voter. Why? Because the gains to be had are marginal, they're mostly republican or conservative, and for some of them, addressing some of their "grievances" would involve slighting the interests of reliable Democratic base voters. Which in turn would depress their turnout.

[megaplayboy]

There is some stupid fake news story going around that secretary Clinton has managed to get more votes than anyone else in history. This is not true. President Obama 4 years ago managed to pull in 66 million votes. That was with a smaller population total. Before that, he pulled in almost 70 million votes. And that was with an even smaller population total. Secretary Clinton has only pulled in around 6５ million votes with a greater pool.

 

Soar

Vote count isn't done yet. She is likely to pass Obama's 2012 numbers, which means only his 2008 number is higher. We'll know in a couple weeks when the final numbers are in.

[Iuz the Evil]

Democrats picked up 2 Senate seats and 6 House seats. Trump got 1% less of the vote than Romney did. Trump won with a lower percentage of the non-white vote than any other recent winner. Winning what is effectively a third term with a candidate perceived as establishment/incumbent is also difficult. Trump did find enough white votes in the Rust Belt to eke out a win, but the fact that Clinton won the popular vote points up that the same demographic challenge which was pointed out in 2012 still exists for the GOP. The Dems do have to do more to turn out their base voters, but imo its a fool's errand to shift too many resources from getting out the existing base in greater numbers to trying to woo the elusive "white working class" voter. Why? Because the gains to be had are marginal, they're mostly republican or conservative, and for some of them, addressing some of their "grievances" would involve slighting the interests of reliable Democratic base voters. Which in turn would depress their turnout.

100% this. Energize the base, get higher voter turnout and the DNC is good to go. Abandoning their platform to shift right would be a massive strategic error. They'd lose their base.

 

They should do what the GOP did 8 years ago in essentially identical circumstances.

[薔薇語]

Vote count isn't done yet. She is likely to pass Obama's 2012 numbers, which means only his 2008 number is higher. We'll know in a couple weeks when the final numbers are in.

So, you quoted an utterly BS story and are just hoping it becomes less BS? Okay. Everyone has their fake news of choice.

 

Soar.

[薔薇語]

Trump won with a lower percentage of the non-white vote than any other recent winner.

Finally you look at demos. So, what do they say? Every demo fled to 3rds. But they fled far faster from the dems (3:1 to 5:1).

 

Soar

[megaplayboy]

So, you quoted an utterly BS story and are just hoping it becomes less BS? Okay. Everyone has their fake news of choice.

 

Soar.

65,915,795--Obama 2012

 

http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174

 

65,228,264 --Clinton 2016(and still counting, it will get larger)

 

You may want to dial it back a bit, chief. Sometimes I'm not sure you're aware how you come across at times.

[megaplayboy]

Finally you look at demos. So, what do they say? Every demo fled to 3rds. Bit they fled far faster from the dems (3:1 to 5:1).

 

Soar

Do you think that will repeat itself in 2020? I have serious doubts that third parties will get anywhere near 5% of the vote next time.

[薔薇語]

Do you think that will repeat itself in 2020? I have serious doubts that third parties will get anywhere near 5% of the vote next time.

Maybe. Maybe not. We have to try our best. That doesn't make the Clinton campaign a success.

 

Soar.

[薔薇語]

65,915,795--Obama 2012

 

http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174

 

65,228,264 --Clinton 2016(and still counting, it will get larger)

 

You may want to dial it back a bit, chief. Sometimes I'm not sure you're aware how you come across at times.

Maybe, just maybe do not spread such obviously fake stories. Nor stories that mean nothing. The US gets larger every year. If you aren't winning with larger raw numbers each time, then that is telling of a whole diff problem.

 

Soar.

[megaplayboy]

Maybe. Maybe not. We have to try our best. That doesn't make the Clinton campaign a success.

 

Soar.

Nowhere did I say the Clinton campaign was a success. How do third parties quantify/qualify what a success is for them?

[薔薇語]

Because you are trying to red-herring the conversation with dismissness towards thirds. Thirds didn't cost Sec. Clinton the race.

 

Soar.

[megaplayboy]

I didn't say they did. At the same time, coalition politics is how things get done in this country(and, well, every democracy on the planet, frankly). I don't see how third parties mesh well with that reality.

[薔薇語]

What? I am completely and utterly lost in your last post. Please expand upon it. 

 

Soar. 

[Ternaugh]

[megaplayboy]

What? I am completely and utterly lost in your last post. Please expand upon it. 

 

Soar.

Let's put it this way. Why not join a major party, en masse, and try to influence it from the inside? You become a faction, or interest group in that coalition, and then your needs have to be given at least lip service by the party establishment, yes? But if you're not inside the tent, what coalition are you a member of? Who are your political allies to help you get stuff actually accomplished?

[薔薇語]

Mega, which of the two party do you thinks represents my ideals even remotely?

The Democratic Party and Republican party are far too wrapped up in issues I can't stomach. Why vote for someone who is going to send young americans to fight, die, and kill young and innocent Syrians? I don't think that is a trade off I can look at myself the next morning having made. Others feel differently and they are welcome to their views. Thus the reason it becomes incumbent upon me and everyone else in the Lib. party to make a case for our ideals being better than the other two parties. 

There is of course room to accept that not everyone is going to match my views on particular issues even inside my party. My candidate this time around was most certainly not the representation of my personal views. I had to trade off some things to rally behind Gov. Johnson. I am surprised that you don't recognize that even Libertarians deal with coalitions. We just refuse to deal with your coalitions because you say we must. 

Soar. 

[薔薇語]

Also, Mega, it should be noted. While I am a Libertarian, that doesn't mean I vote a pure gold ticket. I voted for almost as many Dems this cycle as I did Libs and absolutely no Republicans got my vote. Why? Because those folks earned my vote. 

Soar. 

[megaplayboy]

Mega, which of the two party do you thinks represents my ideals even remotely?

 

The Democratic Party and Republican party are far too wrapped up in issues I can't stomach. Why vote for someone who is going to send young americans to fight, die, and kill young and innocent Syrians? I don't think that is a trade off I can look at myself the next morning having made. Others feel differently and they are welcome to their views. Thus the reason it becomes incumbent upon me and everyone else in the Lib. party to make a case for our ideals being better than the other two parties. 

 

There is of course room to accept that not everyone is going to match my views on particular issues even inside my party. My candidate this time around was most certainly not the representation of my personal views. I had to trade off some things to rally behind Gov. Johnson. I am surprised that you don't recognize that even Libertarians deal with coalitions. We just refuse to deal with your coalitions because you say we must. 

 

Soar.

No, I recognize there are Libertarian coalitions, but a coalition that adds up to 1-3% of the electorate is definitionally not going to be as diverse or disparate as one adding up to 35-55% of the electorate. I don't say you have to deal with our coalitions, but the influence on policy from outside the tent is going to be fairly minimal(barring an exceptional performance in a few consecutive elections). Which means those major party policies are still going to distress you, because the LP efforts aren't likely to have much impact.