薔薇語

You are confusing proximate and ultimate causes here. Republicans aren't creating voter ID laws to mindlessly discriminate against blacks, latinos, and other groups. They are doing it to prevent Democratic voter turnout. If even for a moment a Republican law-maker thought that they would get 60% of the black vote (as opposed to ~5%), such laws would find themselves out in the cold. And that is the real concern from the Democratic party. The proximate effect is that certain minority groups find it harder to vote but the the ultimate effect is that the Democratic party gets less votes. In California, they have created a situation that is designed to limit Republican turnout through disenfranchising them. By extremely curtailing an already limited group they have left the state without a vocal opposition during the election. You get your choice from Blue or Navy. They even eliminated the option of a "protest vote". The only protest vote allowed people is the protest of not voting at all. And guess what. We just saw the biggest "protest vote" for Senate in at least my voting lifetime for California. Democrats in California have found a way to ensure continued power, lower Republican turnout on all down ballot initiatives and somehow aren't being call out on purposeful voter disenfranchisement. Soar.

It (purposely) drives down voter turnout for a whole swath of voters by reducing incentive. Senatorial races, even if foregone conclusions, still provide incentive for people to express themselves. It would be on part with banning all third party presidential races - voters who just don't want to put either candidate into office have absolutely no reason to show up. We can see this quite a bit in the current results. There were some 13 million votes cast this cycle. Senate Race only garnered 8.5 million votes. That totals just 2 million more than Secretary Clinton got in total. Actually lets put this in even starker context. The Last US Senatorial election was in 2012. This was obviously a year of decent turnout for the President but of course senate races pull in less. But how much less was it in the last presidential run? It was 12.5 million. Almost as many people voted in the last Senate election as all total ballots in California this year. And that was 2.5 millions votes cast for Senate last time than were cast for President this time. Senate races in California draw in LOTS of voters. But surely that was just because President Obama was running, right? The Senate election prior to that was in 2010. This was obviously an off year as it was a midterm. Midterms tend to have much lower vote turnout than other times. In 2010 the total votes cast for Senator were about 9.5 million. That is more votes cast for the Republican and Democratic candidate for Senate than cast for the Republican and Democratic President this year! And while Senator Boxer did get 55% of the vote, the republican drew in 4.2 Million votes. The Senate helps bring in voters who would otherwise stay home. We can see that we had a decline in voter turnout by 13% from 2010 and 33% from 2012. This system drives down voter engagement. And reinforces a defacto one party rule. The Republicans in times before had a real struggle in trying to convince independents and Democrats to switch to them. Now they must not only do that but also convince no other republicans to run against them. The moment two Republicans enter the race, the Democrats essentially win both seats. Why so? Having a split primary drives up voters as voters can sense a chance to influence things. Democratic candidates can afford to split their vote because they know with voter increase they can take the loss. The republicans can not because if their lead candidate loses even 5% of the share to another Republican, they have lost any chance. But of course by not having a chance to rally behind the anointed candidate, the Republican base is less engergized and that lowers voter turnout. And don't give me this BS about it helping 3rd parties. This is perhaps one of the biggest shames against third parties. The general election is where most voter turnout occurs and most voter engagement happens. As was being pointed out this year by Dr. Stein and Gov. Johnson, being at the (debate) table drives voters. Simply being able to get your name and the brand recognition for your party out there is important. This system sets up the only chance for third party candidates to the time of the year when those interested in fewer numbers and make up an even more partisan constituency. It blocks third party access to the ballot more than the traditional set up. The reason this is voter suppression is because of the large scale effect it has on particular groups. For the most part Voter IDs and such are not an impossible challenge. They do require a couple extra steps of work. By putting that barrier there, even if minor, it does drive down voter turnout. And we know that the turnout it drives down belongs to typically minority voters. This Senate system purposely put in a barrier by disenfranchising Republicans and 3rd party candidates. Soar.

Since voter suppression gets talked about every once in a while and I am about to do a video on this topic for my youtube channel, I thought I might offer up this bit of "news" - Democratic voter suppression in California likely caused Sec. Clinton to win the popular vote. Yeah, you did not mis-read that. California passed a new law that stated the "primary" for statewide offices (Senator and Gov.) would be essentially run as a general election. The two highest vote recipients would move to the general election and no other candidates would be eligible. As it turned out, two Democratic Senators "won" the primary and the state had a choice between either a Democrat or a Democrat for Senate. It also turns out that this time around there was no race for governor. So the Republican voters of California were faced with two forces pushing down their vote: they are unlikely to ever sway the state electors and now demotivated to vote in the senate. It is no wonder that the state turn out this year was about 8% lower than in 08 - and by far the lowest in the last 4 presidential cycles. Also, the Republican turnout as a whole was down something akin to 7% from 8 years ago. While the overall rate of Republicans in Cal is obviously going to decrease with standard demographic changes, this kind of drop is quite sharp. If we were to bring up Republican voting shares in California by increase voter turnout (not by switching votes) just to 08 levels but kept the current distribution of Republican, Democratic, and Independent voters - President Elect Trump could have gained nearly a million more votes. Thus bringing the popular vote within a few 10s of thousands of votes one way or the other. It is also of interest that there was nearly a 3 million vote gap between total ballots cast and total presidential votes this year. That is an extremely strange occurrence. Of course the above does have its limitations. It rests largely on 2 assumptions (The total share of Republicans has NOT indeed dropped 7 percent in just 8 years) and the lack of a statewide Republican race drove down Republican enthusiasm by a significant degree (not enough to explain ALL absent votes, just about 1/3 of the missing votes). So it is speculative. But the bigger issue is less the results of this election but the possible impact of California's stupid election rules that create institutionalized 1 party states. Soar.

Presidents have not always been able to unilaterally create a whole visa program. That is an extension of power. Soar.

The scope of what can be done with an Executive order has broadened. Same with the leeway agencies have to write and interpret regulation. Deciding immigration policy through executive order - creating a class of immigrant eligible for a new visa without Congressional authority is an expansion of that power. Soar.

I am listening to "This America Life" and something occurs to me: there was a fair deal of Executive Orders to act as stop gaps for difficult legislation. The example that comes up is regarding the legality of people who were brought here as young children and have no ties to foreign life. If President Elect Trump chooses, with but a stroke of a pen he can remove their ability to seek visas. There is nothing the Democrats can do on this issue because President Trump decided he give himself the power to write such policies outside of congressional oversight. It is quite the shame the President and the Democrats allowed such power to be diverted to the presidency alone. No checks. No balances. No recourse. This is why Libertarians get so worked up by the ever expanding Executive. Because this guy might be good, but who knows what the next one will be like. Let's hope the Republicans and Democrats can pass some sane immigration policy and we can get some withdraw of power from the executive that that a single election can't put so many families at risk just to have quick and extremely temporary fixes. Soar.

It takes 2 Republican senators to block absolutely all legislation from their party. And that is assuming they nix the Filibuster as you wanted. Soar.

President Elect Trump to Supporters: "I am so saddened to hear that," Trump told CBS' Lesley Stahl on "60 Minutes" when she said Latinos and Muslims are facing harassment. "And I say, 'Stop it.' If it -- if it helps, I will say this, and I will say right to the cameras: 'Stop it.'" http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/politics/donald-trump-60-minutes-first-interview/index.html?sr=fbCNN111316donald-trump-60-minutes-first-interview0809PMVODtop Such a terrible Racist. Soar.

When we start making over-emotional and/or accusational statements we put are planting the seeds of something that can't yield healthy fruit. This post election discussion is planting a lot of bad seeds. We aren't taking the time to check if something is true or if there is at least some data to back a statement up before letting it slip. "I heard a LGBT person killed themselves" becomes "10 LGBT people killed themselves" in this telephone game we call social media. It is like how Mega still believes in "Bernie Bros" long after the fact. "I am curious to see whether there was a hidden "gender penalty for Clinton in the Senator Sanders campaign" seems like an interesting idle thought. But one with no evidence but a LOT of emotion. And that is all it takes to provoke motivated (bias) reasoning to find any shred of evidence to prove a point - and it doesn't matter. The issue of Suicide is far stronger a case here than the 'gender gap'. That is true. It was probably unwarranted of me to link the two. The consequence of one is that people take it as a social cue to actually kill themself, and the other just inspires greater and unwarranted animosity among us. These memes that everyone who didn't support Sec. Clinton is a racist and/or sexist must stop. Idle speculation about how many of them there are should stop until you actually have some evidence for it and not just raw emotion. So, when is it appropriate to talk about talk about such things? When there is hard evidence. When do we talk about a spike in suicides? When there is evidence there is a spike in suicides. When we do we start saying Sec. Clinton lost because of millions of sexist voters? When there is evidence. Soar.

Nick Adams, director of the GLAAD Transgender Media Program, told BuzzFeed News that there were "unconfirmed reports that some trans people died by suicide in the hours following the election," though at that point it was "not possible to substantiate those rumors." He added that "it's important that mainstream media outlets and people on social media do not spread incomplete or inaccurate information about suicides, as it can lead others to attempt self harm." http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/12/trans-teen-suicide-spike-post-election In essense rumors and loose lip speculation has run rampant. And in the case of suicide, such "news" stories DO increase suicide rates. Soar.

President Elect Trump has proposed a new federal student debt program. Students would be allowed to cap debt at 12.5% and gain forgiveness at 15 years. This is compared to the current 10% at 20 years plan. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/10/13/trump-just-laid-out-a-pretty-radical-student-debt-plan/ I don't know how valuable this will be though. I know that just looking at my own personal finances, I would not actually pay off my debt any faster nor reduce the amount of debt I have paid. And I am also on the higher end of loans. With a decent income. Soar.

NSFW- Language and a bit over the top. Soar.

NSFW: Language Liberal Comedian discusses why Sec. Clinton lost from his perspective. It would seem to be picking up traction on the web. Soar.

Idle speculation that plays far too well into this narrative of finding a boogieman. Some over simplified reason to blame others for why Sec. Clinton lost. It couldn't have been her character, policies, or campaign message - No, there must be sexists, so many that it caused her to lose! Nevermind there is no data to suggest it nor a personal will to work it. Vague speculation is enough. When there is actual data to support implying your fellow citizens are sexist, let's talk. But this tired old tactic of implying Racism and sexism at every turn must end. And it is an implication. These loose lip speculations breed mistrust and full faced lies. Soar.

Did you miss the whole Burnie Bro mess? That was the whole point. Soar.

I highly doubt it did given the historic trends for all demos. And as I stated, if there was one it was so minor as to have not really had effect. If it turns out that motivated pollsters can gin up some small shift, then lets talk about it. Now, though, such words just are baseless accusations. Just like how Secretary Clinton folks used to harp on about how Senator Sanders' must be racists and sexist. No proof, no hint of evidence. Only accusation. Soar.

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.

Nope, there wasn't. Soar.

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.

So much WIN right here. Soar.

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

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.

Galactus must feed sometime. ^^ Soar.

Indeed. Speaking of young voter apathy, though, it should be noted that young(ish) voters were the principle drivers for third party candidates. Overall the third parties picked up about 5%. But for voters under 40, it was almost double that (8-9%). Soar.

Even the narrative of voters not showing up is incorrect. It is true that there was lower overall voter turnout this year than in the previous two cycles, but that turnout was equally depressed on both sides. That depression was also relatively minor. The "Democratic base" showed up at the polls but couldn't bring themselves to 100% commit to what was on the plate. Why do we know this to be the case? Because, despite there being an overall decline in voter turnout, the Republican voter share didn't increase. Had it been a Democratic Depression alone, we would have seen the Republican share rise in equal proportions. It didn't. Republicans faced off against the exact same numbers of non-Republicans. But their opposition was not united. Soar.