sardia wrote:Even assuming the GOP blows up, I don't know how that affects the Democrats.
... Here be dragons.
I mean, I am expecting the GOP to be a dumpster fire. Internal differences are likely to remain a big deal for them, and there'll be a lot of internal squabbling as a result.
But that's not necessarily good for Democrats, yeah. If both sides of the debate are effectively some flavor of Republican, that's mostly just further pushing them out of relevance.
From the moment he was announced as the running mate, Pence reminded me of nothing so much as Josh Freeh, the VP pick from Transmetropolitan who was grown in a vat by the Fascist wing of The Smiler's party in exchange for the nomination. One theory I've heard is that the Republicans might set Trump up for impeachment and be more willing to live with Pence in office.
Clinton keeps narrowing the gap in the popular vote. I'm not sure how many votes are left to count, but it's not gonna take much more to put her over Trump in the popular vote.
Soupspoon wrote:Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin.
All these are states (by the figures so far available to me, at least) where Third Party votes exceeded the difference between the top two candidates. Either direction. Might be interesting to know.
The vast majority of those are for Johnson, who is generally more likely to be a spoiler for Trump than Clinton, though there are some number of Berners who defected to the libertarians when Bernie didn't get the nom. I doubt that 3rd party votes significantly impacted the outcome, but it'll take better data than we currently have to call it for sure.
I agree. Third parties probably, again, were not a spoiler. I'm already seeing rage-articles about people who voted for Harambe, tho. Even though it's incredibly improbable that those few votes would have mattered.
The Great Hippo wrote:I can think of valid reasons to vote for Pence. I can think of valid reasons to vote for Romney. I can think of valid reasons to vote for McCain.
I can't think of valid reasons to vote for Trump. If you voted for Trump, you're not voting Republican; you're voting for Horrible.
While I do agree that I see Trump as horrible, I think it's important to be able to understand why folks voted for him. Otherwise, you're literally dismissing half the voting public as incomprehensible or not worth understanding. I think this sort of attitude is playing into why the democrats lost. There was a certain arrogance on the half of the Democrat establishment that was very dismissive of others. Be it Bernie or Trump, they might have been better served by understanding than arrogance.
This is not to say that understanding is easy. It's often quite hard. It's still worthwhile.
The Great Hippo wrote:I agree that 'racist' and 'misogynist' get thrown around way too much in American politics, but I think Trump is unique in just how much effort he's put into earning those labels.
EDIT: Like, when the head of the Republican party is even saying 'yeah okay that's pretty racist', I think Democrats are allowed to say 'yeah that's pretty racist'.
Yeah, but...at this point, the Democrat party is the boy who cried wolf. Such accusations clearly have absolutely no leverage with Republican voters anymore. Any potential use was expended on much more trivial things.
Zamfir wrote:@Hippo, isn't the wall a good example of dialogue breakdown? After all, the US has actually built that wall already, both under democratic and republican administrations. The debate was never about the wall, the question was whether the wall gets build quietly with regret-faces, or loudly with fuck-you faces. Perhaps you personally oppose the wall entirely, but that was never on the menu.
This is unfortunately the case. The two parties are less distinct in actual actions that the partisans would have you believe. There's already a wall.
And for all the talk of sympathy, people invariably threaten to move to Canada, not to Mexico. Not that either will actually happen, mind, but when you get beyond words, some of the parallels are pretty clear.
Shit, my facebook feed was full of people who are extremely liberal, advocating preparing for the coming apocalypse, and posting memes about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants. It's...odd. More of a mirror image of the reaction to Obama than I thought it would be. I mean, the general grief/shock/unhappiness, sure, but I didn't expect literally using the exact same quotes and images.
The Great Hippo wrote:I don't even know how to parse this argument. Who really thinks the *comedians* are the problem with American politics? Or even *part* of the problem?
*shrug* They're a symptom, not the core problem. The comedy they sell works because people like it, and because the political system makes it work. I agree that there's a problem with dismissiveness and arrogance(among others), but I don't think it's caused by comedians. You're just seeing the rise of it in comedy as well as in culture at large.
You can get away with ignoring small groups, but if the views you're ignoring are too popular, you're dooming yourself to irrelevance. If two sides are competitive, and one competitor has superior understanding, that side's got the edge. Knowledge is literally power, and communication in politics is essential.
The Great Hippo wrote:
maybeagnostic wrote:It is not but even beyond that vitriol drives away people who don't totally agree with you. It splits people into those with you and those against you- apparently those with Hilary only make up about 1/6th of the voters while those with Trump make up a slightly bigger ~1/6th.
It is, and I suspect if you don't understand how it is, this isn't a discussion we can really have. If you don't understand how a woman can be angry toward the anti-woman climate of American politics, I'm not sure I'm capable of bringing you up to speed.
First off, women don't do so badly once they actually run. There's social barriers to them running, but once they start, they enjoy comparable amounts of success. And, if one expects women to be enraged at unfair treatment in the political arena, one would expect more rage from Republican women, who run less frequently than Democrats. This does not appear to be the case. So, your hypothesis doesn't fly.
Now, in *this* election, sure, Clinton was facing a particularly terrible candidate on this score. There was a lot of assumptions that somehow, she was fated to win because she was right, or just, or less bad or whatever. Of COURSE women, Hispanics, etc would flock to her. This now appears to have been a rather optimistic assessment. The politics of identity do not appear to be nearly as reliable as Democrats believed.
The Great Hippo wrote:I don't think all Trump supporters want to kill all Muslims, but I've met ones who do. Aside from hoping they're not the majority, what is it you suggest we do about them? How should I treat them? Should I coddle their feelings? Should I shake their hands and try not to offend them?
Talk to them. Understand them. You don't have to agree with someone to converse with them. Or you shouldn't have to, anyways.
Painting the opposition as only worthy of dismissal and insult only furthers the partisan problem. Yeah, they might believe something awful. Understand them anyways. If you then need to oppose them politically, you are better equipped to do so.
Refusing to discuss and understand primarily hurts you.
sardia wrote: maybeagnostic wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:It's not a good place to be when you're *hoping* the president will break their campaign promises.
How about if you never seriously expected him to keep to the promises but really wanted to show a middle finger to the establishment and prove they don't control you? Putting a wild card like Trump in the White House is a dangerous way to do that but I doubt many of the people who voted for him will regret their decision until he actually does something monumentally stupid.
Test#1, Trump wants a trillion spent on infrastructure, not something popular for Paul Ryan Republicans. Does Trump rubber stamp whatever Congress gives him so long as it's titled infrastructure+ winning? Or does he fight for certain things or dollar amounts.
Alternatively, Trump signs off because it's Trump branded, and he will personally make money off of it? All three are possible.
Eh, Republicans are more than willing to spend money. Maybe they'll tool up highways, power, and pipelines, while proudly dismissing green energy. Could happen. Infrastructure spending could work out alright. Usually a good long term payoff, anyways, provided it's not highly experimental or something.
Soupspoon wrote:So the spoiling didn't work then, did it. If these people didn't want Trump, they did the wrong thing to not get Trump.
Look, we didn't want Clinton, either. Voting for someone else entirely is how you express that. We still get one of the two, because of how voting works here, but you're missing the point. If for some reason, those voters had been forced to vote for one of the main two, they probably would not have primarily voted for Clinton.