Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(5)
Message 1396 of 4573 (822173)
10-20-2017 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1394 by dronestar
10-20-2017 10:39 AM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
dronestar writes:
Hillary Clinton is not only unqualified to be president of the use, but as an unconvicted war criminal (like Hitler) she is also unqualified to be a human being.
Your kind of thinking is what causes war crimes.
No human being is unqualified to be a human being - not Jews, not Muslims, not Hillary, not Hitler, not even assholes like you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1394 by dronestar, posted 10-20-2017 10:39 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1397 by dronestar, posted 10-20-2017 2:37 PM ringo has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 1397 of 4573 (822174)
10-20-2017 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1396 by ringo
10-20-2017 1:24 PM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
ring writes:
Your kind of thinking is what causes war crimes.
ring writes:
not Hitler,
Oh dear, a defender of Hitler is calling me names. I feel so shamed.
Regardless, I'd still rather be an asshole than a war criminal that had fanatically murdered masses of children. Or one of the war criminal supporters.
Apparently, you think differently. Thanks for sharing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1396 by ringo, posted 10-20-2017 1:24 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1407 by ringo, posted 10-21-2017 11:41 AM dronestar has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1398 of 4573 (822180)
10-20-2017 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1391 by Modulous
10-19-2017 5:46 PM


Re: the blame
Modulous writes:
We're 1400 posts in and we haven't begun to cover it - so yeah, brevity was a saving grace I feel
1400 posts is nothing. We're only nine months in to the Trump presidency. Assuming he doesn't get impeached or removed or resign, by the end of his presidency we should be up to 7500 posts. And if he's reelected, make it 15000.
Fair enough - but i'd say that a Republican legislature probably has a bigger negative effect on these things. The executive isn't negligible - but I think 4 years of not changing all that much and 4 years of changing in the wrong direction isn't as big a difference as you might think, in my opinion.
No, this isn't true. I don't know how much US news makes it over to the UK, but Trump is unable to get anything through the legislature and so is ruling by executive order. So far the damage is all him, no one else.
For example, he removed restrictions on the coal industry regarding mountain top removal and the taking care of slag pools - type "West Virginia" into Google Maps, put it in Satellite mode, and see how easy it is to pick out examples of both from 40,000 feet. Once you've removed a mountain top, there's no putting it back. Once a slag pool has leaked into the ground water, there's no putting it back.
For another example, he is trying to free up preserved regions for economic exploitation. Once a forest is removed it takes a very long time to put it back. Once an invaluable archaeological site has been bulldozed or flooded, there's no putting it back.
My long term view is 50-100 years, not 10-20 if that helps understand my perspective.
I understand that your timescale is 50-100 years, and my examples are consistent with it, but I don't understand why your timescale is so long. 10-20 years is a generation at the upper end. Something with an impact that lasts a generation is catastrophic. Europe recovered from WWII in less than a generation. I think the basis of your perspective on this is way off.
Well I treat all moves towards the right seriously. Which is why I wouldn't have voted for either of the main candidates.
Then I was right, you're not treating the threat that is Trump seriously enough. He is not merely someone who is more right than Clinton. He's a madman.
Since I am not going to vote *for* either of the two parties, having already explained I will only vote for someone I want to be President (in that hypothetical world where I'm in the electorate) my only other choice is to not vote at all.
This is a purist position, and like most purist positions it breaks down in the real world. The 2016 election was just such a situation. To the extent that your not voting Clinton or at all led to the election of Trump, you caused a result contrary to your own best interests.
The effect is the same for Clinton's chances - but at least voting for a more left wing candidate will inform people why Clinton didn't get my vote...
There's that "sending a message" thing again.
...the Party moved towards the right and maybe the strategy there was to keep those in the middle and pick up some voters from the right.
That's an interesting opinion. The view of many here is that Clinton continued the leftward movement of the Democratic party, even after including her aggressive policy stances on defense.
But it looks like Clinton lost more votes to the right than she gained AND lost votes on the left. So that strategy - if consciously executed, kind of blew up.
Actually the growing consensus here is that Clinton somehow lost too many Obama voters to Trump.
I didn't think Clinton was a shoe-in. The idea of 3 or 4 Democratic Presidencies in a row is itself unlikely - she was disliked by both by the right and many on the left etc. I thought she'd still manage to win, but I didn't expect it to be by a safe margin.
Well then you should be a political prognosticator on TV (er, I mean the telly), because the polls and the consensus of nearly all the prognosticators was that Clinton would win easily. Almost everyone saw potential Trump paths to sufficient electoral college votes as extremely unlikely.
Nevertheless you keep missing the point - my intention (hypothetical world) was to not give my vote to Clinton, and over time, push the voting landscape leftwards. It was to give voice to how I think the country should be governed. I may be ignored, but I'll say it anyway. The only people responsible for Trump's victory are those that voted for him. If the Democrats want to overcome those votes they need to pick a candidate that will accrue enough {in the right places} to overcome this.
Saying that only those who voted for Trump are responsible is way over-simplistic, and using your vote to send a message to the Democrats to pick candidates more to your preference resulted in an outcome opposite to your best interests. Your arguments that Trump's ill effects won't be that bad are belied by the facts, even just nine months in.
I wouldn't have voted for the Republicans either - but I expect that my vote's influence has less power to send that message. This message should have been what the centre-right people delivered by shifting their votes to Clinton. That they didn't is not so much a function of the Republican nominee as it is the Democrat nominee. Either way, these votes are likely as or more impactful than the dropped votes on the left. So again, the Republican voters remain the most blameworthy for Trump's victory.
Trump is a madman. This is not in doubt. I agree that Republican voters are "the most blameworthy," but they are also inexplicably vulnerable to Trump's snake-oil appeals. Trump puts on a great show on the election trail, he's a populist, and his combative deny-everything accuse-everyone style has served him well, but that he is unfit for the office of the President isn't something that people of intelligence and a modicum of objectivity would ever question. The number of formerly respectable people willing to serve in his administration is a great disappointment. Acting on your principles is not something that should be difficult for people of principle, which I at one time thought many of these people were. It's a travesty and a mockery of integrity and honesty the way people like Kelly and Tillerson and on a daily basis Sanders (Sarah Huckabee, not Bernie) defend and attempt to explain Trump's behavior.
Then the Democrats can safely ignore it, business as usual. This won't earn my vote but if they don't care that's their concern. I voiced my perspective in any case.
I think that in 2020 the Democrats will nominate the winner of the primaries, just like they did in 2016. Of what good is your message?
Well here's hoping the Republicans aren't gripped by the insane 'it's not simply about voting for him, its about voting against the Democrats' nominee that you are reverse-arguing for here.
Politics is very polarized in the US right now, and if Trump remains President for his full 4-year term then it is a very safe bet that politics will be even more polarized in 2020.
I not only addressed one of the main points to that effect but you replied to it.
Wasn't able to track it down.
Also Sanders was a social democrat, not a democratic socialist.
Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist. That's how he would have run in the election. It would have been a killer. And not living here in the US you might not realize that that even had he changed nomenclature that the distinction between "social democrat" and "democratic socialist" is not one that Americans have any idea of or could have been educated about.
Well that's your opinion, and maybe it would have. But if more Democrat voters would prefer Trump to Sanders than Democrats who declined to vote for Clinton - I hope you have more disdain for the former at least.
If Sanders had been the Democratic candidate then even greater numbers of Democrats and those leaning Democratic would have cast protest votes or not voted. Sanders was governor in the next state over from mine. It's not like my knowledge of how he is perceived were just formed last year when he emerged on the national stage.
I don't think the reason is obvious,...
Well, maybe not to the guy from the UK or Sanders supporters, but otherwise, that's about the only people it's not obvious to. Here's a headline from the Washington Post from a couple days ago about a debate about tax cuts between Sanders and former Republican candidate for President Ted Cruz: Cruz totally outclassed Sanders in last night’s debate. If Ted Cruz can beat Sanders in a debate, Trump would have crushed him.
...and I'm happy to keep him on the list thank you.
Yeah, you do that, UK-guy.
As I have already said - I'd be surprised if Clinton was the best option,...
Well, it's not surprising that Sanders would be preferred by Europeans, but you're supposed to be pretending you're a US citizen voting in a US election. To do that you're going to have to either leave your European proclivities behind or be clear that you're pretending to be an American of very, very liberal politics (as measured on the American scale from liberal to conservative).
...but if she really was then the Democrat party is in big trouble.
You actually seem to know something about American politics, so why would you say this? Goldwater got slaughtered by Johnson in 1964, yet the Republicans took the White House four years later. Humphrey got slaughtered by Nixon in 1972 (despite 3rd party candidate George Wallace siphoning votes away from Nixon), yet the Democrats took the White House four years later. George H. W. Bush slaughtered Michael Dukakis in 1988, yet the Democrats took the White House four years later. Clinton slaughtered Dole in 1996, yet the Republicans took the White House four years later. Obama slaughtered Romney in 2012, yet the Republicans took the White House four years later.
So given this history, how does it make any sense to argue that "the Democratic party is in really big trouble"? Add to this history the fact that Clinton won the popular vote by a substantial margin and only lost the electoral college because of the way a mere 70,000 popular votes were cast, a mere 0.05% of the total popular vote?
By the way, you are right that "the Democratic party is in really big trouble," but for different reasons. They control no branch of the federal government, and they have distinct minority of state governorships, and a distinct minority of state legislatures. They're by a significant margin in multiple categories the minority party in the US.
No, I meant that it is your opinion that Clinton is not evil or an evil or whatever.
Say what? Where is this negativity about Clinton coming from? She's a politician much similar in character to many other politicians. Trump's in his own category of evil as a politician (malicious, malevolent, vicious, vengeful, unfeeling, cruel), he demonstrates it daily and even almost hourly, and it is mere spouting of nonsense to suggest that Clinton fits anywhere near the same category.
Come up with some specific names and transform your hypothetical into something that can actually be discussed.
A) Why?
B) How?
Yeah, good questions, and without answers you have nothing supporting your absurd position that there were better candidates out there than Clinton. Your excuse:
Without votes, without the campaign, without the opposition what can we say about anyone? As I said - let's see who the next nominee is. Then tell me that this individual could not possibly have been a superior option to Clinton in 2016.
Is just more nonsense. Politicians have their moment that they can take advantage of to achieve high office, plus the passage of four years adds experience and an opportunity to develop a following, increase influence, and refine one's positions. You're just pretending that the reality of the way politics works doesn't exist.
It might be the case, but I was countering your position certainty by showing a reason to doubt. I don't need specifics to do this.
No, I'm pretty sure you need specifics. Otherwise you're just arguing hypothetically.
Again, if the Democrats can't field someone with a better chance than Clinton (someone who can get say, a 5% margin rather than a 2% margin of the popular vote) the Democrats, and by extension America, is screwed.
You're fighting the last war again. 2020 is very unlikely to play out the same way as 2016. For one thing, Trump will have had more time to consume his young (i.e., destroyed by his penchant for often being his own worst enemy).
And that's because the Democratic party is the one that actually chooses the system its going to use to pick the nominee - and if that system is an inferior one then its their fault.
Where are you getting this nonsense about the Decmocrats being the party that chooses their system? Both parties use very similar procedures for choosing their nominees, and neither party makes any dramatic changes in their primary process from one Presidential election year to the next. I directed you to the United States presidential primary webpage in my previous message. Did you visit that webpage and find something there that led you to believe what you just said? Wherever your idea came from, it is sorely mistaken.
Sure, the people in the Primaries could vote smarter - but their information is restricted because the selection method provides limited information so their blame is less.
Yet more nonsense. Where are you getting this stuff? How could their information be restricted because of the "selection method," which except in the caucus states is open to participation by every registered voter. The candidates go to the states with upcoming primaries and actively campaign. How can the information possibly be restricted?
I am saying I vote *for* candidates, not *against* candidates. If you can find someone who voted another way just because they thought it was safe, and not because of their political opinions then argue these kinds of points with them.
Okay. Don't engage the point if you don't want to.
I know there were plenty who refused to give their vote to Clinton not because they thought it safe, but because they did not want to give their vote to Clinton.
Pardon my skepticism, but you know this how?
I don't have any numbers to back up which group is larger, but you seem certain - can you provide any research?
It isn't clear what groups you're referring to, and of what do I seem certain? The only thing I've expressed with certainty is that those who opposed Trump but cast protest votes against Clinton contributed to an outcome they never in any way desired.
I thought I'd expressed that I am not happy with 'right wing' vs 'even more right wing' as options.
I think you have to make up your mind whether you're contributing to this thread from a US or European perspective. I understand that from a European perspective both the Republican and Democratic parties are more to the right than many European political parties, but most of what you've written here has been from the point of view of a US citizen voting in the 2016 Presidential election. But it's only going to lead to confusion if sometimes you write as if you were a US citizen, and other times you write as a European criticizing the American political system and its political parties. Or if you could at least make it more clear when you're writing from which perspective, that would be helpful.
Indeed. And that system doesn't necessarily produce the person most likely to win the Presidency, as I said. And I'm not OK with that. If we are stuck with a two party system, I'd prefer if the major party closest to my views could more accurately pick the most likely to win nominee.
Yeah, okay, now I can see that you've changed perspectives and are criticizing the American political system. That's fine with me, criticize it all you like, I just ask you try to make it clear when you're doing that.
My response to this is that from a US perspective this is incredibly naive. Changes like what you want are not going to happen. Suggesting such things is as dumb as me arguing with you about how you should change your parliamentary system, and by the way, about that monarchy...
There's a difference between ignoring reality and being dissatisfied with it.
That's fine that you're dissatisfied with it. Strange that a guy from the UK cares so much, but fine.
A) I am not OK with a two party system
B) This isn't about preferring a different nominee. It's about not wanting to contribute to any mandate to the nominee put forward.
Great, thank you for your opinion. Will you be returning to the realm of the possible any time soon?
It's not the only way. We still end up with the Executive being one of two parties. Alternate style voting is a better method for getting multiple parties or running more than one candidate per party - especially when we're talking about a single winner like a Presidential election.
Again, thank you for your opinion. Not going to happen. Moving on.
They wouldn't be 'my party'. I wouldn't be a Democrat any more than you are one. To me, my vote is one of my tools to express my political opinion. Sensible parties analyze votes after an election to see where they dropped votes. Oh, the Green Party is getting lots of votes, perhaps we should make Green issues more important. OH UKIP are getting lots of votes, we should make Europe a campaign issue. That way they can take votes away from those parties by better representing the changing views of the country.
I think it's a safe bet that political parties in the US also analyze election results.
I understand you are big proponent of engaging in tactical voting. I'm sorry that you don't understand that I'm not and why. I'm not sure if I can find a way to explain it any other way.
Then your understanding is wrong, because I'm not a "big proponent of engaging in tactical voting." My position is that 2016 was special, that it was not the year to be registering a protest vote.
Using the vagaries of the electoral college as one reason as to why Clinton is not President is what I meant by blame.
...
If you don't like 'blame' substitute 'attributed'.
Sure, attributing Clinton's loss to vagaries of the electoral college is fine, using the definition of "attribute" that means "regarded as resulting from". "Blame" implies that the electoral college is in some way being held at fault, and that's not the case. We consider the electoral college one of the realities of the Presidential election process, not an object of blame.
I wasn't talking about what will happen, I was suggesting what should happen to avoid the scenario of a candidate with a better chance in the actual election not being selected as nominee. Given the dire consequences of this happening when a Trump like candidate runs, I would have thought you'd be inclined to at least agree on this.
I didn't know you were talking about hypotheticals. I thought you were suggesting realistic changes. I'm not really interested in the hypotheticals. They're not going to happen.
Quite right. So you can expect the same things will keep happening.
Quite wrong that we can expect the same things will keep happening. Whatever happens in 2020, a repeat of 2016 is unlikely in the extreme.
No point talking about how to move the glacier towards a better place, right? The glacier will just magically move towards a better solution without anyone arguing, persuading and uniting people to move it that way.
I wouldn't agree that there's no point talking about it, I just didn't even realize that's what you were talking about. This is a thread about the Trump presidency, and while we've occasionally drifted off the main topic, I think a pretty good proportion of the discussion has been on-topic. I don't think it would be a problem if there were a diversion in this topic to talk about how to change the way the US elects presidents. I don't know if I would participate. It doesn't interest me at the moment, but maybe I'd become interested.
No, it's not moot. It's exactly on target. If right wing policies are becoming popular I'm not going to contribute to that by voting for right wing person just because the alternative is a very right wing person.
I think RAZD is one of the participants in this thread who would agree with you.
I am not arguing you aren't screwed. I'm just suggesting your next political focus should be the legislature.
Don't worry, it is.
As far as who is President, that's true. But I'm not only focussed on which votes ultimately matter. The local popular votes contribute to the electoral votes. I have also discussed how better to distribute the votes that matter to reduce the 'bumpiness' the electoral college currently results in, I have also discussed better primary nominations...
Not that you don't have a point, but I just can't generate any enthusiasm for discussing possibilities that just are not in the cards.
The popular vote however, is not important. There is a correlation for obvious reasons,...
Well, sometimes there's a correlation, sometimes not. Just look at 2016, where Trump won 46.1% of the popular vote but 57% of the electoral college. Look at 1980, where Reagan won 50.7% of popular vote but 91% of the electoral college.
...but the Mandate for President is given by the States, not the People.
True.
25% of the People's votes can result in 50.x% of the State's votes.
Not sure what this means, unless it's a comment about election participation rates.
Yes, I was subverting your analogy to use it to reinforce my point. That's really the only option open as a response to an analogy that isn't dismissive in some way. I'm not suggesting they fight a campaign that would win 2016. I'm suggesting they look at the general problems that lead to that loss and try to learn lessons from them.
This appears to have the attributes of being well written and well stated, but honestly I have no idea what it means.
If those problems are that people on the left of the democrat leaners declined to vote Democrat this time, they should try to ensure they don't alienate them with their candidate choice. If it is that fielding a candidate disliked by the centre right is no way to counter a far right candidate, then they should give up the fight for the centre right and focus elsewhere.
I know I keep saying this, but the system of choosing the parties' nominees isn't going to change. There are maybe 10 caucus states (a caucus is a meeting of party activists where candidates are chosen), but in the rest of the states it's just a popular vote.
If it was poor management of swing states, then they should rethink their swing state strategies. More personal level campaigning? Focus on the working class more and the middle class less?
These are fine suggestions. The parties both already do the first one all the time. About more personal level campaigning, that's primary dependent. In some weeks there's only one state holding a primary, and in other weeks there's a whole fleet of states holding primaries. Campaigning doesn't get more personal than in my state. We're the first state to have a primary, we're small, and there are no other states having a primary at the same time. If you want to sit down and have a cup of coffee with a future president of the United States you won't have any trouble doing it. But for other states, like those that are part of a Super Tuesday (Tuesday is voting day here in the US), there are many states holding primaries at the same time, and candidates cannot be everywhere at once.
About focusing more on the working class , I think that might more be European designation than American. It's not that we don't understand the term, but the vast majority of the people in the US would answer the question, "What economic class are you in?" by responding "middle class" or "lower middle class" or "upper middle class." I expect few would answer "working class." Maybe I'm wrong about that, maybe that's specific to my area of the country, we'll see if anyone has any comment.
You don't bother. Targeting a candidates base is usually a futile effort.
Yeah, that was the point of the snake oil analogy.
Clinton was seen as the 'business as usual' candidate during an election where people were angry with business as usual. Might work for an incumbent, but it's a hurdle for someone trying to get their party in for a third term. It's safe, but rarely actually works.
Yeah, one of Clinton's negatives. She was seen as a continuation of Obama but without the lofty rhetoric or the sense of empathy and compassion.
I doubt the Republicans are going to change their party to appease Sanders supporters.
No, no, of course not the Sanders supporters. The Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio supporters, and the nine other Republican candidates.
That message needs to be sent by the Republican voters - like those that voted Obama who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton.
Very true. Unfortunately it is only in retrospect that Republican voters are realizing that they should have been sending a different message. I don't know if US presidential poll numbers get mentioned in the UK, but he's set a record for continuous low poll numbers by a new president. His base is standing by him, though.
Seems pointless to keep bringing it up in a discussion about factors that contributed to Clinton's loss then.
Oh, no, it's very much to the point. You can't forget that Clinton won the popular vote by a substantial margin while trying to understand why she lost.
Also strange that you would characterise it as 'the problem' and the cause of Clinton's loss earlier.
You're going to have to point me to where I said that.
Why? I'm arguing for nudging things in my political direction over the course of my lifetime...
So now you're arguing in your hypothetical role as an American citizen? If so, and if you mean the changes you mentioned in your previous message, then good luck, Sisyphus.
Your obsession with what has a chance is peculiar. It's absolutely not a good reason to not argue in favour of them. It's not even a good reason to not talk about them. Not discussing them only reinforces the likelihood of them never being adopted rather than eventually.
So talk about them for the longer term if that's what you want to talk about. My focus in this thread is on the next four years (hopefully not more than that), and your topic doesn't really interest me, but maybe somebody here is interested.
After all, the idea that black people would get the vote didn't have a chance of implementation once.
Very true. They needed emancipation before they could get the vote, and then there were Jim Crow laws in the south that prevented their voting for a long time, but I get your point. To achieve a goal, no matter how distant, you have to at least start working on it.
But how our political parties should choose their candidates isn't the topic of this thread (which is fine, diversions from the main topic are fine), and you say you're taking the long term view, rather than something that could be achieved by 2020, so this just doesn't interest me.
I've consistently voted for the party that is in favour of gay marriage. Eventually - decades after I started - that party and that issue got enough power that the right wing leader of the UK put it in front of parliament - and while his party voted it down, my elected party universally voted it up and the second biggest party mostly voted it up and it passed.
The same lightbulb recently went on in this country, though Trump is working against it now.
In the meantime, the highly improbable Brexit happened, and the unlikely to pass but did surprisingly well AV referendum happened. Not the perfect alternate voting system, but we finally showed a 1/3 of the country is in favour of it. Progress towards my political ends, with some political losses thrown in too. Such is democracy.
Sorry, not much about UK politics makes the news here except Brexit. I'm not familiar with most of that paragraph.
Also - you are arguing this was not the election for a protest vote. The chances of you ridding the US elections of protest votes that impact results is also next to nil. So let's not discount discussion on the grounds of short term probability of implementation.
What I was saying wasn't a proposal for implementing anything. It was a description of how some people were voting against their own best interests.
Personally - I think getting the candidate with the best possible chance of winning an election should be a goal of a party, and I hope the Democrats find ways to do better at it than the Republican Party. But if things are fine the way they are according to you, then we're good. Clinton lost, she was the best candidate they could realistically find but statistical noise scuppered her victory. End of story.
Well, I'm not missing the sarcasm, but not exactly. I hope both parties do the best job possible of selecting candidates in 2020 so that the best meaningful options are available to me. I'm a financial conservative and a social liberal, and until the last decade or so that made for some difficult voting decisions. But the Republican focus on financial deregulation (the stuff that contributed to the 2008 financial collapse, and their continuing push at further deregulation, including some Trump executive orders this year) has changed the equation, making it much easier to vote for Democratic presidential candidates recently.
I have not given any probabilities of adoption. As with all political actors, I am arguing in favour of my preferred outcomes. If enough people join me, it will become an issue. If enough people get behind the issue, it will motivate change.
Okay. And you're talking again as a hypothetical American citizen again, right?
I assume you are susceptible to a gentle reminder of the boundaries and the ease in which starting to gnaw at them can result in in-kind retorts and then debate hell.
...
Says the person from the nation that actually elected Trump. See? That could be friendly joshing but it can escalate right?
What I wrote was intended as gentle indications that your proposals were outlandish. You've since explained that you were talking on a timescale of 50-100 years, but when I reacted to those proposals you hadn't yet revealed that information. When you throw outlandish ideas out at people and demand they treat them reasonably it makes them feel like you're questioning their intelligence, as if you were thinking, "I wonder just how stupid this person is?"
Escalate away if that's your desire, but you seem interested in serious discussion, so I don't see why you'd do that. I can pretty much guarantee I'll continue to react with sarcastic skepticism when presented with outlandish ideas.
A less personal rejoinder would be to say I am reasonable confident I'm as informed or moreso than many of your countrymen whose vote actually counts about the US political system. I was a (metaphorical) coin toss away from becoming a citizen myself like 2/3 of my brothers and 3/3 of my father.
Oh, you're definitely better informed about our political system than almost all people here, including Trump, yet speaking as you are from a distance there is just so much you're missing. Plus this might explain some of the things you said, perhaps being opinions from Americans in your family rather than hard information.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1391 by Modulous, posted 10-19-2017 5:46 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1404 by Modulous, posted 10-20-2017 10:35 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1399 of 4573 (822182)
10-20-2017 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1394 by dronestar
10-20-2017 10:39 AM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
dronestar writes:
Percy writes:
I think you need to go back on your meds.
*Chuckle*
No, seriously, go back on your meds. What you're doing isn't normal behavior.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1394 by dronestar, posted 10-20-2017 10:39 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1417 by dronestar, posted 10-23-2017 1:34 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1400 of 4573 (822183)
10-20-2017 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1395 by New Cat's Eye
10-20-2017 1:08 PM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
Please don't encourage the troll.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1395 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-20-2017 1:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1402 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-20-2017 9:48 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1401 of 4573 (822189)
10-20-2017 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1393 by Stile
10-20-2017 9:51 AM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
Stile writes:
I'm not advocating that it could be within someone's best interests to vote for Trump.
Although, I do think it could be possible to be in someone's best interests... not someone I would like very much... but I'm sure some piece of garbage would actually want Trump in office for their own best interests.
Well, don't go too far. Some of my best friends voted for Trump. I don't think they're very informed politically, but who I like and enjoy doesn't seem to have much to do with politics.
I'm advocating that some people certainly can make a 3rd party vote that works in their best interests.
Yes, I know.
Are you again claiming that no one has lost their job or lost a family member due to Democratic policies?
Since I didn't claim it a first time, how could I claim it again?
Look, for whatever reason you're having a hard time understanding that I'm not trying to make any specific claims. To me much of what you say is nonsense, and when I try to make clear to you why it seems like nonsense to me, you answer as if I'd asserted something that I never had. I don't know how to fix you.
I thought you agreed already that it's quite reasonable and understandable that some people have experienced massive personal loss due to Democratic policies or direction "in general." Is this no longer true?
No, I never agreed with you. What I've said is that as long as you continue to speak nonsense that I will never agree with you. What I've said is that no policy helps everyone and hurts no one.
Where a few possible examples of "massive personal loss" can include losing the ability to provide for themselves or their family or even losing a family member due to military decisions.
These aren't examples, they're very general situations. For example, about military decisions, the Viet Nam war was fought under both Republican and Democratic administrations. So was the Iraq war.
But there's no connection between your hypothetical scenarios and the simple message I've been repeating: 2016 was the wrong election for Democrats or Democrat leaning people or even 3rd-partiers to be voting for anyone but Clinton, because it could only make things worse for you by making the election of Trump possible. If you're a starving family of Democrats, Trump will make things worse for you. If you're a poor family that needs help affording health insurance, Trump will make things worse for you. If you're the grieving wife of a dead soldier, Trump will make things worse for you. And of course, Trump will also be making things worse for those who voted for him.
NAFTA may have been implemented a long time ago, but it was supported by the most recent Democratic party and continues to be supported by them today. This results in people losing their jobs very recently, in the millions as the article quote I gave claims.
Yes, I know, Robert Reich says lots of things. And the Wikipedia quote I provided you contradicted him. Now what?
2. People have experienced massive personal loss due to the current support/direction of the current Democratic party
By "current Democratic party" you mean the one that controls neither the legislative nor the executive branch of government?
Or by "current Democratic party" do you mean the Obama administration, under whom unemployment fell year after year once we started recovering from the 2008 financial crisis, which by the way had nothing to do with NAFTA?
What give you the right to decide what someone else's "best interests" are?
You mean when it comes to access to healthcare and jobs and food and a clean environment and things like that? Don't we all assume these things are in everyone's best interests?
Isn't that what being an adult in a free country is all about? Being able to decide, for yourself, what your own best interests are depending on your own experiences and own desires for the future?
Boy, the confusion with you just never ends, does it. Who said anything about putting constraints on people's right to cast their vote as they see fit?
Some poor person in the midwest who can only afford health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act has the perfect right to vote for Trump, which would be against their own best interests because Trump is trying to take that health insurance away from them.
I think you may be confusing my declaration that some people cast votes that were contrary to their best interests with telling people how they must vote. I'm doing the former, not the latter.
And I'll continue to explain this to you for as long as you'd like.
Oh, thank God, I'll never be lonely.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1393 by Stile, posted 10-20-2017 9:51 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1433 by Stile, posted 10-24-2017 9:41 AM Percy has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1402 of 4573 (822202)
10-20-2017 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1400 by Percy
10-20-2017 5:27 PM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
Please don't encourage the troll.
--Percy
But Hitlary is evil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1400 by Percy, posted 10-20-2017 5:27 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1403 by Percy, posted 10-20-2017 10:21 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1403 of 4573 (822207)
10-20-2017 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1402 by New Cat's Eye
10-20-2017 9:48 PM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
If you’d like to engage in constructive discussion of the topic then please proceed, otherwise get off the thread. I’m sure I’ve said many things about Trump that you disagree with, but this is not the way to register your disagreement. We do it through discussion here. You know that.
Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1402 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-20-2017 9:48 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1405 by granpa, posted 10-20-2017 11:01 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 1404 of 4573 (822208)
10-20-2017 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1398 by Percy
10-20-2017 5:15 PM


Re: the attribution
No, this isn't true. I don't know how much US news makes it over to the UK, but Trump is unable to get anything through the legislature and so is ruling by executive order. So far the damage is all him, no one else.
Here is the legislature's actions so far:
H.J.Res. 66 - removing protections for state employee's pension plans. Those protections include fiduciary responsibilities and the ability to sue for those affected by breach of these responsibilities. Those responsibilities are that the plans should be run for the benefit of the beneficiaries, risk be diversified etc etc.
S. 496 - removing certain planning restrictions in the realm of transit. The responsibilities of those involved include the regulation of congestion and air quality.
H.J.Res. 43 - States can now withhold funding from health centres that provide abortion services
S.J. Res. 34 - overturning certain privacy regulations surrounding collecting data on users of the internet.
H.J. Res. 83 - rolls back prior requirements for reporting work place injuries and reduces the statute of limitations from 5 years to 6 months for violations in this area.
H.J.Res. 69 - removes restrictions on certain types of hunting. Want to shoot a bear from a helicopter? Go Bear-baiting? Well now you can in Alaska
H.J.Res.42 - let's drug test people seeking unemployment benefits
H.J.Res.57 - removes certain accountability measures for schools. Like academic success, student progress. That kind of thing.
H.J. Res. 58 - Also - teacher preparation doesn't need to be something we worry about.
H.J. Res. 44 - Reduces local input significantly, looks at less facts when deciding whether to allow logging and mining operations etc on federal lands.
H.J. Res. 37 - Those employing government contractors no longer have to report labour law violations - including wage theft, discrimination and unsafe working conditions
H.J.Res. 40 - guns for the severely mentally ill
H.J.Res.38 - remove protections on streams from pollution from coal mining waste
H.J.Res.41 - it is no longer required to disclose payments to the government for the commercial development of oil, gas or minerals.
These are pretty bad, I'm sure you'd agree. Now plenty Trump's EOs have been bad too - comparing them is non-trivial. Coupled with his international diplomatic 'skill' the balance certainly seems to weigh in Trump's favour right now. To say the damage is all him, however, is certainly wrong.
You mentioned two of his actions - but the legislature, as you can see, has done similar things regarding exploiting natural resources and water pollution issues.
I understand that your timescale is 50-100 years, and my examples are consistent with it, but I don't understand why your timescale is so long. 10-20 years is a generation at the upper end. Something with an impact that lasts a generation is catastrophic.
Something with that impact is significant. But something lasts 100 years is more significant. If securing votes for black people for 100 years or more takes 20 years of bad things, I'd take it - wouldn't you? That's rhetorical, I know the answer.
Then I was right, you're not treating the threat that is Trump seriously enough. He is not merely someone who is more right than Clinton. He's a madman.
You are wrong. I am treating him seriously. I've turned down job opportunities in the States, and I'm not visiting my family while said madman is in charge. I got enough crap from authorities when Bush was in charge, and I had less breasts then. I'm not taking any chances. And I do get the UK references, I have the option of not being there at least.
This is a purist position, and like most purist positions it breaks down in the real world. The 2016 election was just such a situation. To the extent that your not voting Clinton or at all led to the election of Trump, you caused a result contrary to your own best interests.
My interests are for the next 100 years, as I said. If my vote was important to the Democratic party next time they'll have field a candidate that will get it. I aim for more good candidates on average, than bad ones. Trump clearly upsets this average, but I'll continue to fight for the political direction I think Presidents should be going in.
But it looks like Clinton lost more votes to the right than she gained AND lost votes on the left. So that strategy - if consciously executed, kind of blew up.
Actually the growing consensus here is that Clinton somehow lost too many Obama voters to Trump.
Not really a moment to say 'actually'. I did say she lost more votes to the right than she gained, after all. Those would be the Obama voters to the right of Obama. Many of those Obama voters she lost tend to vote Republican in the legislature, studies suggest.
I think that in 2020 the Democrats will nominate the winner of the primaries, just like they did in 2016. Of what good is your message?
I think you are right.
But I also think the winner of the primaries is likely the person that powers that be in the party wanted to win - the person they put their weight, finances and publicity machine behind. I doubt that a single election will be sufficient to change their mind on their strategies all that much, but as I said it's nudging the glacier. It's a long term view, not one which I expect to have any significant effect for a single election.
There may come a tipping point, where after fielding many right leaning politicians they realize the slowly shifting political landscape of the electorate means that moving left will score more votes but my plans are not contingent on that tipping point necessarily being the next election.
To do that, people need to vote leftwards, otherwise they won't have the evidence to suggest the landscape has moved.
Politics is very polarized in the US right now, and if Trump remains President for his full 4-year term then it is a very safe bet that politics will be even more polarized in 2020.
That's certainly the trend of the last 20 years or so. I hope it breaks left.
I not only addressed one of the main points to that effect but you replied to it.
Wasn't able to track it down.
quote:
The point where it becomes less clear is - what would have happened to Sanders {or some other candidate} post nomination.
I think those that think as you do would have still voted for him. He's a Democrat, so get behind him to get avoid Trump at the very least.
The question is about those that elected to not vote for Clinton who normally vote Democrat compared with those that would not vote for Sanders who would normally vote Democrat...
This reflects the main gist of the counter in the article that later in the race, Sanders may have done worse than Clinton for various reasons and Clinton may do better.
As it turns out those same polls had Clinton about 6 points ahead of Trump, and she ended up 2 points ahead in the popular vote. Those polls put Sanders ahead of Trump by 12 points. He'd have to drop 10 points from the polls to do as 'badly' against Trump as Clinton. Possible? Sure. But it's food for thought.
If Sanders had been the Democratic candidate then even greater numbers of Democrats and those leaning Democratic would have cast protest votes or not voted. Sanders was governor in the next state over from mine. It's not like my knowledge of how he is perceived were just formed last year when he emerged on the national stage.
So far I'm hearing your opinion. Maybe it's correct. Do you have evidence for this?
Here's a headline from the Washington Post from a couple days ago about a debate about tax cuts between Sanders and former Republican candidate for President Ted Cruz: Cruz totally outclassed Sanders in last night’s debate. If Ted Cruz can beat Sanders in a debate, Trump would have crushed him.
The same author also penned:
Huntsman-Bachmann in 2012! - The GOP should rally early to this dream ticket
Trump’s presence at the U.N. General Assembly was reassuring
So far, so good. But this is just the beginning of Hurricane Harvey for President Trump.
Last night, the president did himself a lot of good. But how long will it last?
Democrats can’t hide their anti-business bias
Comey’s testimony was a net plus for Trump
Comey should have been out long ago
Obama has no shame
President Trump and the Republican majority show they can govern
The GOP should ignore the debt consequences and pass the Trump tax cuts
Trump is skillfully navigating Washington’s budget realities
Ivanka Trump is a reassuring presence in an unpredictable White House
I'm not sure I'm going to find a former staffer for Reagan and Bush and someone who is sometimes critical of, but overall supporting Trump an unbiased reporter on this matter.
quote:
Ed served in the White House as Deputy Assistant to the President and Executive Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Ed also served as Senior Deputy to Bush-Quayle Campaign Manager Lee Atwater from 1987 through the general election in 1988.
From 1985 through February of 1987, Ed worked in the Reagan White House in the Office of Political Affairs, where he served as Haley Barbour’s deputy as Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of the Office of Political Affairs
Yeah, you do that, UK-guy.
Thanks American dude.
Well, it's not surprising that Sanders would be preferred by Europeans, but you're supposed to be pretending you're a US citizen voting in a US election. To do that you're going to have to either leave your European proclivities behind or be clear that you're pretending to be an American of very, very liberal politics (as measured on the American scale from liberal to conservative).
I'm pretending that I was in the electorate. I almost was a US citizen like other members of my immediate family. I don't see the point in me talking about what it would be like if I had different political views.
You were replying to me suggesting it would be surprising if Clinton was the candidate with the best chance of winning the Presidential election, so my opinion of her is not really important to that point.
You actually seem to know something about American politics, so why would you say this? {mentions losses of one election followed by wins in the next}
quote:
Clinton slaughtered Dole in 1996, yet the Republicans took the White House four years later.
Was one such mention. Being slaughtered may not be surmountable, but do you think Dole was really the best candidate the Republicans could have fielded? That Pat Buchanan could definitely not have secured as many votes? That George Dubya couldn't have even done better?
I'd hope that whoever runs for the Democratic ticket in 2020 is not likely to get all the experience in 4 years that suddenly makes them a good pick that they lacked in 2016. So conceivably whoever that is, may well have been a strong enough pick to do better than Clinton. If not, that doesn't look good for the Democrats - it means they may be looking a talent deficiency they will have to scramble to correct in only a few years.
So given this history, how does it make any sense to argue that "the Democratic party is in really big trouble"? Add to this history the fact that Clinton won the popular vote by a substantial margin and only lost the electoral college because of the way a mere 70,000 popular votes were cast, a mere 0.05% of the total popular vote?
If a 2 point lead in the popular is the *best* the Democratic Party is capable of in 2016 (which I personally don't think it was) - they have deep problems that won't likely be resolved in 4 years. Meaning either 8 years of Trump, or at least 8 years of Republican executive is reasonably likely - which I would suggest qualifies as being screwed.
Say what? Where is this negativity about Clinton coming from?
People's brains. I mean I'm just pointing out that people have different opinions of Clinton than you. Not controversial, I presume.
She's a politician much similar in character to many other politicians.
Which some people might opine is 'an evil'.
Yeah, good questions, and without answers you have nothing supporting your absurd position that there were better candidates out there than Clinton.
It's my opinion that there likely were, based on the flawed selection system and the fact there are plenty of intelligent, politically savvy people in the United States qualified for the role to pick from. I never couched it as an absolute. I conceded several times that maybe she was the best candidate possible, I only mentioned that she might not be and that being the case - there may be ways to more optimally find the candidate most likely to win the election.
Is just more nonsense. Politicians have their moment that they can take advantage of to achieve high office, plus the passage of four years adds experience and an opportunity to develop a following, increase influence, and refine one's positions. You're just pretending that the reality of the way politics works doesn't exist.
I'm not ignoring it. I said that maybe such a person didn't exist in 2016 more than once. You're ignoring my nuance to accuse me of ignoring reality.
No, I'm pretty sure you need specifics. Otherwise you're just arguing hypothetically.
I'm pretty sure I don't need specifics to argue that maybe, and hopefully there were better people who could have run than Clinton.
You're fighting the last war again. 2020 is very unlikely to play out the same way as 2016. For one thing, Trump will have had more time to consume his young (i.e., destroyed by his penchant for often being his own worst enemy).
I'm not suggesting the Democrats fight the battle of 2020 as if it were 2016. I'm saying they need to optimize their selection process to try and avoid marginal losses that should have been wins. I'm looking at the next 25 battles, not just the one in front of me.
Where are you getting this nonsense about the Decmocrats being the party that chooses their system?
My mistake. Who does choose the Democratic Party's system for electing Democratic candidates? Is it the Egyptian Revolution Party?
I directed you to the United States presidential primary webpage in my previous message. Did you visit that webpage and find something there that led you to believe what you just said?
quote:
In 2016, following a push by Senator Bernie Sanders, the party voted in favor of superdelegate reform, such that in future presidential elections most superdelegates will be bound to their state primary results
Hrm, looks like the Democratic Party chose that. How am I mistaken? Did they not write, update, maintain and follow the Charter and Bylaws?
Yet more nonsense. Where are you getting this stuff? How could their information be restricted because of the "selection method," which except in the caucus states is open to participation by every registered voter. The candidates go to the states with upcoming primaries and actively campaign. How can the information possibly be restricted?
You should probably hold off from pulling that 'nonsense' trigger and just focus on the questions if you misunderstand my position.
They are missing the information regarding which nominees will fail to get as many votes in the election from those who voted for someone else in the primaries. That is, if the person that gets plurality of votes is somehow hated by everyone else resulted in some significant proportion of 'defectors' - that information is not reflected in the results. Nor is the information that the second runner might actually pick up all the same votes as the plurality winner with the bonus of not dropping votes from defectors, should that be the situation.
I know there were plenty who refused to give their vote to Clinton not because they thought it safe, but because they did not want to give their vote to Clinton.
Pardon my skepticism, but you know this how?
Because they said so.
quote:
I am not voting for Hillary Clinton, regardless of her endorsement by Bernie Sanders. My decision isn’t because of the scandal around her emails or because of some concern over her character. My reasons are pretty straightforward. I don’t agree with her ideologically.
Hillary Clinton: Why I Won't Vote for Her | Time
quote:
At least 1,000 people rallied Sunday against Hillary Clinton's likely selection as the Democratic presidential nominee here, and thousands more are expected to join in Monday as the Democratic National Convention starts. Some of those activists say they will not vote for Clinton under any circumstances, a feeling further compounded by leaked emails that showed some within the party at least considered subverting Sanders. ...
estnick and another activist, Billy Taylor, who organized one of Sunday's protests, said they could not be convinced to vote for Clinton.
"There is absolutely nothing that anyone can tell me about Hillary Clinton. I know enough. There is nothing in this world that will make me vote for Hillary," said Taylor, executive director at Philly.fyi.
Taylor and Cestnick said some "Never Hillary" voters will either write in Sanders, vote for the Green Party's Jill Stein, or abstain altogether.
https://www.cnbc.com/...backers-hold-firm-as-dnc-starts.html
The number of people who withheld their vote from Clinton while believing their action had true potential for resulting in a Trump election must be very small. The more substantive factor is that the polls showing Clinton with a substantial lead must have convinced many it was safe to vote that way.
I don't have any numbers to back up which group is larger, but you seem certain - can you provide any research?
It isn't clear what groups you're referring to, and of what do I seem certain?
The group that withheld their vote because it was 'safe' and the group that withheld their vote for political reasons. You mentioned the one, I talked about the other. I then said I don't know which is bigger but you seem certain as you said it 'must be very small'. I think you earlier referenced them as almost being able to fit in a phone box to express your view its a small group.
Yeah, okay, now I can see that you've changed perspectives and are criticizing the American political system.
My first post to you in this thread was Message 1357.
There I said
quote:
We could also blame the system, looking at it another way. The idea that people vote for the presidential candidate the way they do {one vote, winner takes all simple majority style} is fraught with possible problems.
It's not a change if that's what I've been saying the whole time.
Suggesting such things is as dumb as me arguing with you about how you should change your parliamentary system, and by the way, about that monarchy...
a) The dissolution of the monarchy is a realistic long term point of discussion
b) We do use alternative methods of voting for certain elections
c) We have had a referrendum on AV for General elections
d) Proportional representation is fair game for discussion, but a distant likelihood.
Who can vote, and how they vote can change in a country. It won't happen if you dismiss it as naive and unworthy of discussion, I expect. As I said the last time you decided to go down this road.
In any event, this part of the thread was a response to you telling me that I seemed to okay with the Trump result, and I was just saying that I wasn't OK with Trump AND Hillary AND other things.
That's fine that you're dissatisfied with it. Strange that a guy from the UK cares so much, but fine.
A guy from the UK with close family in the United States, working for a company with job opportunities in the States, who lives in the world where America is a significant influence.
Hey, you know, I have also argued about German and Turkish court decisions too. Perhaps it's just you guys from America that don't care about what goes on in other countries.
think it's a safe bet that political parties in the US also analyze election results.
And it's this fact I'd be relying on when I voted for someone who was neither Clinton nor Trump, did you not get this yet?
Quite wrong that we can expect the same things will keep happening. Whatever happens in 2020, a repeat of 2016 is unlikely in the extreme.
I'd say, from a thermodynamics perspective it's essentially impossible. But that's not what I meant, obviously.
What I was saying was that by not fighting for change, you won't get it. Obviously the years change, the politicians change, the economy changes, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you'll continue to have all the same kinds of problems as ever.
I didn't know you were talking about hypotheticals. I thought you were suggesting realistic changes. I'm not really interested in the hypotheticals. They're not going to happen.
Nebraska and Maine don't have a winner takes all distribution of electoral votes. I don't see why it's absurd to think a third state might join them.
San Francisco, California; Oakland, California; Berkeley, California; San Leandro, California; Takoma Park, Maryland; Basalt, Colorado; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Telluride, Colorado; St. Paul, Minnesota; and Portland, Maine - all use IRV for various elections. I don't think it's that unrealistic. A long term project maybe, and one that may never manifest. But worth arguing in favour of I think.
I wouldn't agree that there's no point talking about it, I just didn't even realize that's what you were talking about. This is a thread about the Trump presidency, and while we've occasionally drifted off the main topic, I think a pretty good proportion of the discussion has been on-topic. I don't think it would be a problem if there were a diversion in this topic to talk about how to change the way the US elects presidents. I don't know if I would participate. It doesn't interest me at the moment, but maybe I'd become interested.
It was 50% of my first post - and a good amount of what I've been saying since. It's one of my reasons for not voting for Clinton - to encourage the party to find better ways of picking a candidate.
The popular vote however, is not important. There is a correlation for obvious reasons,...
Well, sometimes there's a correlation, sometimes not. Just look at 2016, where Trump won 46.1% of the popular vote but 57% of the electoral college. Look at 1980, where Reagan won 50.7% of popular vote but 91% of the electoral college.
The correlation is in the winning - not the numbers. Winning the popular vote usually coincides with winning the electoral. Sometimes even saying uncontroversial things seems to get pushback from you. I actually discussed these very result back in Message 1374, for what its worth.
25% of the People's votes can result in 50.x% of the State's votes.
Not sure what this means, unless it's a comment about election participation rates.
It means you can win only 25% of the popular vote but gain over 50% of the electoral college. Not likely, naturally. More details can be found in Message 1339
Yes, I was subverting your analogy to use it to reinforce my point. That's really the only option open as a response to an analogy that isn't dismissive in some way. I'm not suggesting they fight a campaign that would win 2016. I'm suggesting they look at the general problems that lead to that loss and try to learn lessons from them.
This appears to have the attributes of being well written and well stated, but honestly I have no idea what it means.
Well, erm thank you?
I'm not suggesting fighting 2016 again, I'm suggesting learning lessons from 2016. I can't simplify it much more than that.
About focusing more on the working class ...I expect few would answer "working class." Maybe I'm wrong about that, maybe that's specific to my area of the country, we'll see if anyone has any comment.
yeah - I've noticed that Americans are as shy of calling themselves working class as Brits are about calling themselves middle class. By all measures I can find I'm middle class - but I still hold to my roots of working in bars and warehouses and factories and try to claim I'm working class.
However, I'm sure there is a phenomena of calling *other* people working class exists there.
It was working-class whites: Hillary Clinton lost a lot of Obama voters to Donald Trump, Democratic firm says | Salon.com
The Dangerous Myth That Hillary Clinton Ignored the Working Class - The Atlantic
The Dangerous Myth That Clinton Focused on the Working Class
2016 election: Why the white working class ditched Clinton - CNN
Also strange that you would characterise it as 'the problem' and the cause of Clinton's loss earlier.
You're going to have to point me to where I said that.
I already did in my post. But here it is again
quote:
I think you've identified the wrong problem. It isn't that Clinton didn't appeal to enough people, it's the way their votes mapped onto the electoral college that caused the loss.
Very true. Unfortunately it is only in retrospect that Republican voters are realizing that they should have been sending a different message. I don't know if US presidential poll numbers get mentioned in the UK, but he's set a record for continuous low poll numbers by a new president. His base is standing by him, though.
The internet means the curious can follow along. Here is a fairly popular political commenter/comedian {chosen for its entertainment factor, and that US audiences have enjoyed it and also - it kind of mirrors the argument here in amusing ways}
So now you're arguing in your hypothetical role as an American citizen? If so, and if you mean the changes you mentioned in your previous message, then good luck, Sisyphus.
I'm arguing how I act politically in my country, and how I would, by extension, in yours.
So talk about them for the longer term if that's what you want to talk about. My focus in this thread is on the next four years (hopefully not more than that), and your topic doesn't really interest me, but maybe somebody here is interested.
Well, you aren't likely to eradicate the existence of protest voting in the next few years. So what else have you got?
But how our political parties should choose their candidates isn't the topic of this thread
So to reiterate
Clinton wouldn't have secured my vote.
Your argument that sometimes tactical votes are important is not unknown to me, and it is insufficient to persuade me in the 2016 case.
I hope that when they draw out the political landscape my vote on the left, along with the other people's will notify the Democrat party that these are easier to pick up than chasing the votes on the right. Maybe the number isn't enough now, but if I stop voting left it's certainly not going to make it more attractive for the party to shift the way I want it.
How they go about finding where those votes are and optimising their campaign and candidate is their business. I've offered some ideas around the subject to illustrate that their current methods can fall short. If we want to avoid Trump-likes in the future we'd better hope the Democrats act in such a way to maximise their chances.
In any event, that's why I vote for left third party - both where I live, and as a hypothetical American. It is to try to use my vote to show the direction I want to go in - however the Parties decide to try and follow this, to understand the will of the people, with their procedures and analysis.
Escalate away if that's your desire, but you seem interested in serious discussion, so I don't see why you'd do that. I can pretty much guarantee I'll continue to react with sarcastic skepticism when presented with outlandish ideas.
You should probably revisit the start of the debate though. The alternate voting system was primarily to show that sometimes the nominee selection method isn't optimal and that this fact may be something to take into consideration when assigning blame attributing causes in the 2016 election.
I do think they should be fought for, but my point was principally that rather than attributing the causes to people who voted a third party as contributing to the loss, there might be systemic causes behind the loss.
And that since 'changing the people' is probably as (or more) 'outlandish' as 'changing the system so that it better listens to the people' it seems absurd for you to get sarcastically skeptical of what I've said.
Oh, you're definitely better informed about our political system than almost all people here, including Trump, yet speaking as you are from a distance there is just so much you're missing. Plus this might explain some of the things you said, perhaps being opinions from Americans in your family rather than hard information.
We don't talk politics. They aren't Trumpians judging by their Facebook but they're certainly right leaning. My father is in oil and abhors the green party. They're all Floridians, Texans and Louisianan.
I get my information from reading US News articles, watching US News broadcasts, reading US legal decisions and laws. I pay attention because I care about the world, I care about my family, New Orleans is my second home and well, I find it all round interesting. I'm probably more informed of US politics than I am on UK politics at least half the time. When I was deciding where to go to University it was either the UK and computing or US and law. Strangely my parents dissuaded me from studying law in America...I expect it was the cost
Someone was talking about gun laws in the US at my workplace recently, and getting it all wrong (not just arguments on the internet wrong, but really really badly wrong) so I interjected. They were not only surprised by me reciting the second amendment verbatim, they were kind of shocked to hear me referencing Scalia's infamous prefatory vs operative clause distinction. When they asked 'who is Scalia' I realized I needed to get back on the internet!
{and no naughty commenting on the time of my post - I practically live EST/EDT! }

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1398 by Percy, posted 10-20-2017 5:15 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1406 by xongsmith, posted 10-21-2017 7:50 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1408 by Percy, posted 10-21-2017 2:00 PM Modulous has replied

  
granpa
Member (Idle past 2341 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 1405 of 4573 (822210)
10-20-2017 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1403 by Percy
10-20-2017 10:21 PM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
Percy writes:
but this is not the way to register your disagreement. We do it through discussion here. You know that.
Oh really?
Edited by granpa, : No reason given.

Why BELIEVE that it will rain today when you can KNOW that it might rain today. Belief is unnecessary and illogical.
A moral person is a person that understands that the universe does not revolve around their ego.
A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or group of people.
The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1403 by Percy, posted 10-20-2017 10:21 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 1406 of 4573 (822225)
10-21-2017 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1404 by Modulous
10-20-2017 10:35 PM


Re: the attribution
Modulous writes in Message 1404 above, amid many things,
They are missing the information regarding which nominees will fail to get as many votes in the election from those who voted for someone else in the primaries. That is, if the person that gets plurality of votes is somehow hated by everyone else resulted in some significant proportion of 'defectors' - that information is not reflected in the results. Nor is the information that the second runner might actually pick up all the same votes as the plurality winner with the bonus of not dropping votes from defectors, should that be the situation.
See, this was the main problem with Hillary - she was so virulently HATED by so many. Regardless of whether it was justified or not (it was not), it should have been seen by the DNC as a
Huge Blinking Warning Light.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1404 by Modulous, posted 10-20-2017 10:35 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1409 by Rrhain, posted 10-21-2017 6:02 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1407 of 4573 (822228)
10-21-2017 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1397 by dronestar
10-20-2017 2:37 PM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
Dronestar writes:
Oh dear, a defender of Hitler is calling me names.
Yes, Hitler was human. His dog liked him.
The first step in war crimes is to dehumanize your victims. You've taken it one step farther, laughing at the idea that other humans are human.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1397 by dronestar, posted 10-20-2017 2:37 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1418 by dronestar, posted 10-23-2017 1:41 PM ringo has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1408 of 4573 (822234)
10-21-2017 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1404 by Modulous
10-20-2017 10:35 PM


Re: the attribution
No, this isn't true. I don't know how much US news makes it over to the UK, but Trump is unable to get anything through the legislature and so is ruling by executive order. So far the damage is all him, no one else.
Here is the legislature's actions so far:
...
To say the damage is all him, however, is certainly wrong.
Sorry, I phrased that in an ambiguous way. I was referring only to Trump initiatives, like healthcare and tax cuts. He hasn't been able to get a single one of his initiatives through Congress yet. His only successful initiatives have been executive orders.
But that is very bad list of legislative actions, and of course some of them did make the news. The removal of protections from pollution from coal mining waste was, I thought, an executive order, but I guess it's just legislation Trump signed. It must have been just the mountain top removal issue that was an executive order.
Something with that impact is significant. But something lasts 100 years is more significant. If securing votes for black people for 100 years or more takes 20 years of bad things, I'd take it - wouldn't you? That's rhetorical, I know the answer.
It has its non-rhetorical aspects. School segregation in Boston was addressed by court order from judge Garrity to bus students so as to balance school populations racially from 1974 to 1988, 14 years. This caused white flight in the form of leaving the city altogether and using private or parochial schools, plus there was considerable pushback from the city and the school districts that continually thwarted Garrity's orders. The eventual result was public school districts with dominantly non-white populations.
It's the same in the south. Eliminating Jim Crow laws and the Voting Rights act of 1965 did not eliminate efforts to keep blacks from voting - these efforts continue today with things like voter ID laws. You can't legislate racism away.
I agree with you in principle, and the change in sentiment about LGBT issues and drug laws here in the US was a surprising development over the past few years. But some things are part of human nature, and you can apply whatever timeframes you like, you're not going to change that.
You are wrong. I am treating him seriously. I've turned down job opportunities in the States, and I'm not visiting my family while said madman is in charge. I got enough crap from authorities when Bush was in charge, and I had less breasts then. I'm not taking any chances. And I do get the UK references, I have the option of not being there at least.
I'm sorry to hear that (though I didn't understand the part about "I do get the UK references..."). This is probably too personal, but why breasts and women's clothes with a beard? Is this a subclass of LGBT where you're attracted to men who are attracted to men who have some of the characteristics of women'? Or you're attracted to women who are attracted to men who have some of the characteristics of women? Or it's just for yourself?
But your concerns about entering the US at this time don't change my mind about how seriously you take the threat.
You would never vote for Clinton because she's too far right even though had she been elected these concerns you have about even entering the US would evaporate. You seem like a perfect example of voting against your own best interests.
My interests are for the next 100 years, as I said. If my vote was important to the Democratic party next time they'll have field a candidate that will get it.
Get what? Clinton is already on your side.
I aim for more good candidates on average, than bad ones. Trump clearly upsets this average, but I'll continue to fight for the political direction I think Presidents should be going in.
And you'll do it from the UK, rather than from the US where you would be now and closer to your family had Clinton been elected.
quote:
Clinton slaughtered Dole in 1996, yet the Republicans took the White House four years later.
Was one such mention. Being slaughtered may not be surmountable,...
Not sure why you're saying slaughters may not be surmountable. The whole list was of slaughters being followed by victory four years later.
...but do you think Dole was really the best candidate the Republicans could have fielded?
Dole was the Republican willing to run in an election where it appeared to most that it didn't matter who the Republicans ran, they were going to lose.
That Pat Buchanan could definitely not have secured as many votes?
Pat Buchanan? That joke? No, he would not have done as well as Dole. He was slaughtered 3-1 by Dole in the primaries.
I'd hope that whoever runs for the Democratic ticket in 2020 is not likely to get all the experience in 4 years that suddenly makes them a good pick that they lacked in 2016.
Don't be silly. It's a continuum that didn't just begin in 2016 of increasing experience, contacts, refinement of positions, alliances, successes, unpredictable events, luck, etc.
So conceivably whoever that is, may well have been a strong enough pick to do better than Clinton.
There was no such person on the radar.
If not, that doesn't look good for the Democrats - it means they may be looking at a talent deficiency they will have to scramble to correct in only a few years.
I agree that there currently seems a dearth of qualified Democratic candidates in 2020, but why do you care? The Democratic party is not going to move what you consider far enough to the left by 2020. Don't forget what country this is, and the Democrats have a base they have to be true to. You're not going to vote Democratic in 2020 no matter who they run, which won't be someone as left as Sanders.
Since you're thinking 50-100 years out, why do you care about 2020 anyway?
If a 2 point lead in the popular is the *best* the Democratic Party is capable of in 2016 (which I personally don't think it was) - they have deep problems that won't likely be resolved in 4 years.
This statement is belied by the list of slaughters followed by victory that I listed above. Not that the Democrats don't have deep problems, but their margin of popular vote victory is not one of them.
Meaning either 8 years of Trump, or at least 8 years of Republican executive is reasonably likely - which I would suggest qualifies as being screwed.
If the presidential election were today then Trump would lose big time. He's got a few years to put his house in order and show that he can be a decent chief executive, but he's given no evidence that that is within his ability.
Say what? Where is this negativity about Clinton coming from?
People's brains. I mean I'm just pointing out that people have different opinions of Clinton than you. Not controversial, I presume.
Of course people have different opinions about Clinton, but don't forget that Clinton wasn't my first choice, either. But evil? That's ludicrous. It demonstrates no judgment and reveals a lack of discrimination. It's an assault on the English language. If Clinton is evil then what word do you use for someone who is truly evil, like Trump?
She's a politician much similar in character to many other politicians.
Which some people might opine is 'an evil'.
More nonsense, for the same reasons I just gave.
It's my opinion that there likely were, based on the flawed selection system and the fact there are plenty of intelligent, politically savvy people in the United States qualified for the role to pick from.
The qualification that you should be talking about is to be a "better candidate" than Clinton, but you seem to be talking about someone who would be a potentially better president. You *do* need someone who has a prayer of getting elected, someone with a demonstrated ability to build constituencies, navigate the complex presidential election minefield, build alliances, project the right public image, communicate the right message, etc.
I never couched it as an absolute. I conceded several times that maybe she was the best candidate possible, I only mentioned that she might not be and that being the case - there may be ways to more optimally find the candidate most likely to win the election.
But now you're talking about Clinton and 2016, not your 50-100 year timeframe. Nothing you're saying was remotely possible in 2016. You're living in fantasyland.
I'm not ignoring it. I said that maybe such a person didn't exist in 2016 more than once. You're ignoring my nuance to accuse me of ignoring reality.
I didn't see any nuance. What I saw was what you actually wrote:
Modulous in Message 1391 writes:
Without votes, without the campaign, without the opposition what can we say about anyone? As I said - let's see who the next nominee is. Then tell me that this individual could not possibly have been a superior option to Clinton in 2016.
What you're calling "nuance" is unsupported speculation.
I'm pretty sure I don't need specifics to argue that maybe, and hopefully there were better people who could have run than Clinton.
No, I'm pretty sure you need specifics if you want a prayer of building a convincing argument. Anyone can pose a hypothetical.
I'm not suggesting the Democrats fight the battle of 2020 as if it were 2016. I'm saying they need to optimize their selection process to try and avoid marginal losses that should have been wins. I'm looking at the next 25 battles, not just the one in front of me.
The context is 2020, but you're describing your "50-100 years out" ideas. The Democratic "selection process" is not going to change in any significant way by 2020. You're again in fantasyland.
Where are you getting this nonsense about the Decmocrats being the party that chooses their system?
My mistake. Who does choose the Democratic Party's system for electing Democratic candidates? Is it the Egyptian Revolution Party?
Reread what you wrote again:
Modulous in Message 1391 writes:
And that's because the Democratic party is the one that actually chooses the system its going to use to pick the nominee - and if that system is an inferior one then its their fault.
This is obviously saying that of the two parties, the Republican party and the Democratic party, that "the Democratic party is the one that actually chooses the system it's going to use to pick the nominee," leaving the Republicans as the party that does not do this. Which is absurd.
Or were you maybe just trying to be cute, stating the incredibly obvious in lengthy fashion that it is the Democrats that define their primary system?
You went on to say:
Modulous in Messsage 1391 writes:
...and if that system is an inferior one then its their fault.
The Democrats and Republicans use pretty much the same system - the differences are too minor to be worth exploring, even the issue of superdelegates. If the Democratic system of selecting candidates is inferior, then the Republican system is also inferior. It's a level playing field. Plus, to say it once again, none of this is going to change by 2020. If you want to talk about significant change then you're going to have to return to talking in the context of your 50-100 year timeframe.
quote:
In 2016, following a push by Senator Bernie Sanders, the party voted in favor of superdelegate reform, such that in future presidential elections most superdelegates will be bound to their state primary results
Hrm, looks like the Democratic Party chose that. How am I mistaken? Did they not write, update, maintain and follow the Charter and Bylaws?
That you ended up arguing incredibly obvious truisms should have told you that you missed a turn somewhere.
You should probably hold off from pulling that 'nonsense' trigger and just focus on the questions if you misunderstand my position.
You should probably be more clear when you're talking about 2016 and 2020 versus 50-100 years out, and not be so cute in your expression.
They are missing the information regarding which nominees will fail to get as many votes in the election from those who voted for someone else in the primaries. That is, if the person that gets plurality of votes is somehow hated by everyone else resulted in some significant proportion of 'defectors' - that information is not reflected in the results. Nor is the information that the second runner might actually pick up all the same votes as the plurality winner with the bonus of not dropping votes from defectors, should that be the situation.
And...we're back into the 50-100 year timeframe, not that there was any hint that you were changing timeframes again. Anyway, good luck with all that. I'm just worried about getting through the next four years.
I know there were plenty who refused to give their vote to Clinton not because they thought it safe, but because they did not want to give their vote to Clinton.
Pardon my skepticism, but you know this how?
Because they said so.
quote:
I am not voting for Hillary Clinton, regardless of her endorsement by Bernie Sanders. My decision isn’t because of the scandal around her emails or because of some concern over her character. My reasons are pretty straightforward. I don’t agree with her ideologically.
Hillary Clinton: Why I Won't Vote for Her | Time
But they obviously didn't say anything about assuming Clinton's election was assured.
quote:
At least 1,000 people rallied Sunday against Hillary Clinton's likely selection as the Democratic presidential nominee here, and thousands more are expected to join in Monday as the Democratic National Convention starts. Some of those activists say they will not vote for Clinton under any circumstances, a feeling further compounded by leaked emails that showed some within the party at least considered subverting Sanders. ...
estnick and another activist, Billy Taylor, who organized one of Sunday's protests, said they could not be convinced to vote for Clinton.
"There is absolutely nothing that anyone can tell me about Hillary Clinton. I know enough. There is nothing in this world that will make me vote for Hillary," said Taylor, executive director at Philly.fyi.
Taylor and Cestnick said some "Never Hillary" voters will either write in Sanders, vote for the Green Party's Jill Stein, or abstain altogether.
https://www.cnbc.com/...backers-hold-firm-as-dnc-starts.html
Again, absolutely nothing about believing Clinton's election was assured.
The group that withheld their vote because it was 'safe' and the group that withheld their vote for political reasons. You mentioned the one, I talked about the other. I then said I don't know which is bigger but you seem certain as you said it 'must be very small'. I think you earlier referenced them as almost being able to fit in a phone box to express your view its a small group.
The phone booth comment was in a reply to Stile who was contriving wacky scenarios. I don't think you can apply anything I said to Stile as fitting into this conversation. See Message 1370 for the phone booth comment. I was saying that the number of Democrats who thought Sanders, Stein and Trump all preferable to Clinton must be a very small group.
I think there must be a great deal of overlap between the two groups you described who withheld their vote from Clinton, one who felt Clinton's election assured, the other with political reasoning. Why the former group wasn't using political reasoning you don't say, and this seems a nonsensical set of groupings.
Yeah, okay, now I can see that you've changed perspectives and are criticizing the American political system.
My first post to you in this thread was Message 1357.
There I said
quote:
We could also blame the system, looking at it another way. The idea that people vote for the presidential candidate the way they do {one vote, winner takes all simple majority style} is fraught with possible problems.
It's not a change if that's what I've been saying the whole time.
You've changed back and forth between the 2016/2020 timeframe and the 50-100 year timeframe innumerable times. As I've said, your changes are hard to follow, sometimes clear from context, oftentimes not.
Who can vote, and how they vote can change in a country. It won't happen if you dismiss it as naive and unworthy of discussion, I expect. As I said the last time you decided to go down this road.
Once again you're completely unclear about when you're talking about. Is this about 2020 or 50-100 years from now? If you're talking about 2020 then of course I'm interested in discussing it. If you're talking about 50-100 years down the road then I've carefully and politely explained that discussing change that far out doesn't grab my interest and isn't the topic of this thread, though I have no problems with thread diversions. Sorry, that's the reality.
In any event, this part of the thread was a response to you telling me that I seemed to okay with the Trump result, and I was just saying that I wasn't OK with Trump AND Hillary AND other things.
Yeah, I know, you're not okay with Clinton, even though she would have probably given you 95% of what you want. You're a purist.
You know, politics never remains static. If you're still alive in your 50-100 year timeframe and the US finally hits that political sweet spot that you seek, it won't stay there for long. Things will change.
A guy from the UK with close family in the United States, working for a company with job opportunities in the States, who lives in the world where America is a significant influence.
And who wants to come to the US but remains in the UK while arguing against the candidate who would have allowed him to fell comfortable coming to the US.
Hey, you know, I have also argued about German and Turkish court decisions too.
He said in all modesty. And I'm sure everyone acceded to the brilliance with which you accurately interpreted foreign law with all its history and context. I think you're confusing your admirable ability to formulate arguments supporting any position with being right.
Perhaps it's just you guys from America that don't care about what goes on in other countries.
I think much of the world pays the most attention to the largest and most influential countries, but following the news and Googling things isn't the same as living there. Much of their thinking about foreign places will be shaped in ways of which they're not even aware by where they live.
think it's a safe bet that political parties in the US also analyze election results.
And it's this fact I'd be relying on when I voted for someone who was neither Clinton nor Trump, did you not get this yet?
Nope, and I still don't get it. You "voted" against your own best interests and by result (possibly - no way to know for sure) are still stuck in the UK. You know, you're not going to live forever. At some point, and I suggest sooner rather than later, you might want to jump down off that 50-100 year horse of principle you're mounted on and go off and do what you want to do.
What I was saying was that by not fighting for change, you won't get it. Obviously the years change, the politicians change, the economy changes, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you'll continue to have all the same kinds of problems as ever.
And...we're back to the 50-100 year timeframe. You know, it's okay when people are interested in different things. I'm interested in 2018 and 2020. You're interested in 50-100 years from now. There's nothing wrong with that.
Nebraska and Maine don't have a winner takes all distribution of electoral votes. I don't see why it's absurd to think a third state might join them.
And...we're back to 2020. Yes, I already mentioned Maine and Nebraska quite a while ago in a reply to RAZD in Message 1354, and somewhere else I described the possibility of another state or two making that change, so I don't think it's absurd at all. What I think is absurd is when you take something I say about 2016-2020 and interpret it in a 50-100 year context, or vice versa.
San Francisco, California; Oakland, California; Berkeley, California; San Leandro, California; Takoma Park, Maryland; Basalt, Colorado; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Telluride, Colorado; St. Paul, Minnesota; and Portland, Maine - all use IRV for various elections. I don't think it's that unrealistic. A long term project maybe, and one that may never manifest. But worth arguing in favour of I think.
And...we're back to the 50-100 year timeframe. I think it's great that there are people working toward the eventual goal of IRV at a national level. No objections and nothing I ever argued against.
It was 50% of my first post - and a good amount of what I've been saying since. It's one of my reasons for not voting for Clinton - to encourage the party to find better ways of picking a candidate.
You didn't make clear that you were talking about a 50-100 year timeframe until much, much later.
The correlation is in the winning - not the numbers.
What you actually said back in Message 1391 and that I was replying to was this:
Modulous in Message 1391 writes:
As far as who is President, that's true. But I'm not only focussed on which votes ultimately matter. The local popular votes contribute to the electoral votes. I have also discussed how better to distribute the votes that matter to reduce the 'bumpiness' the electoral college currently results in, I have also discussed better primary nominations...
The popular vote however, is not important. There is a correlation for obvious reasons, but the Mandate for President is given by the States, not the People. 25% of the People's votes can result in 50.x% of the State's votes.
You implied a correlation between the popular vote and electoral vote, not the winning.
Winning the popular vote usually coincides with winning the electoral. Sometimes even saying uncontroversial things seems to get pushback from you.
The "pushback" was about what you said, not what you thought you said. Yes, obviously, as history tells us, about the correlation with winning, usually the winner gets the most popular votes, and sometimes not.
I'm not suggesting fighting 2016 again, I'm suggesting learning lessons from 2016. I can't simplify it much more than that.
But I've never objected to learning lessons from 2016. I just don't think that one of the lessons was that Clinton was the wrong candidate.
Also strange that you would characterise it as 'the problem' and the cause of Clinton's loss earlier.
You're going to have to point me to where I said that.
I already did in my post. But here it is again
quote:
I think you've identified the wrong problem. It isn't that Clinton didn't appeal to enough people, it's the way their votes mapped onto the electoral college that caused the loss.
Wow, you went back five days of posts for that one. That quote was from my Message 1359, and I was responding to where you said in Message 1357:
Modulous in Message 1357 writes:
So if he makes it 4 years and elects to run a second time, the Democrats had better field a candidate that appeals to more people than their last effort.
Anyway, I didn't call it "the problem". I said that you've identified the wrong problem. I suppose I could have been more clear, but it would have involved a lot more words, but here's the more clear version. I wasn't saying that you've identified the wrong problem but that I've identified the right one. I was trying to say that you've gone seeking a problem and think you've found one, but all we really have is an explanation for why Clinton lost, which is the way the popular vote mapped onto the electoral college. I also said a lot more in that paragraph in Message 1359, only part of which you quoted. Here's the full paragraph:
Percy in Message 1359 writes:
Well, two problems with this. First, you just finished emphasizing the electoral college vote while ignoring the popular vote, but here you properly put it in terms of appealing to "more people" not "more electors," (of course the latter isn't possible in any planned way). In the 2016 election Clinton appealed to nearly three million more people than Trump. Again, I think you've identified the wrong problem. It isn't that Clinton didn't appeal to enough people, it's the way their votes mapped onto the electoral college that caused the loss. You're also ignoring the Comey factor. And running against charismatic populists is fraught with peril, as the Italians discovered repeatedly with Silvio Berlisconi, and as the Austrians just discovered with Sebastian Kurz, though maybe not so much charisma for Mr. Kurz.
The internet means the curious can follow along. Here is a fairly popular political commenter/comedian {chosen for its entertainment factor, and that US audiences have enjoyed it and also - it kind of mirrors the argument here in amusing ways}
I didn't find the profane screed against Clinton informative or amusing.
I'm arguing how I act politically in my country, and how I would, by extension, in yours.
After living here a while you'd find the reality on the ground changing your current thinking quite a bit.
Well, you aren't likely to eradicate the existence of protest voting in the next few years. So what else have you got?
It was never my interest or argument "to eradicate the existence of protest voting in the next few years," and I thought I just said that in my last post, or at least the one previous to that. All I've done is note that protest votes can produce a result contrary to your own best interests.
So to reiterate
Clinton wouldn't have secured my vote.
So to reiterate, enjoy the UK.
I hope that when they draw out the political landscape my vote on the left, along with the other people's will notify the Democrat party that these are easier to pick up than chasing the votes on the right. Maybe the number isn't enough now, but if I stop voting left it's certainly not going to make it more attractive for the party to shift the way I want it.
And...we're back to sending messages again.
How they go about finding where those votes are and optimising their campaign and candidate is their business. I've offered some ideas around the subject to illustrate that their current methods can fall short.
And...we're back to the 50-100 year timeframe.
If we want to avoid Trump-likes in the future we'd better hope the Democrats act in such a way to maximise their chances.
Obviously the way to avoid Trump in 2016 was to vote for Clinton.
You should probably revisit the start of the debate though. The alternate voting system was primarily to show that sometimes the nominee selection method isn't optimal and that this fact may be something to take into consideration when assigning blame attributing causes in the 2016 election.
And...we're back to 2016.
And that since 'changing the people' is probably as (or more) 'outlandish' as 'changing the system so that it better listens to the people' it seems absurd for you to get sarcastically skeptical of what I've said.
And...we're back to the 50-100 year timeframe. Who said anything about "changing the people"? That preposterous insertion into the discussion is yours alone.
We don't talk politics. They aren't Trumpians judging by their Facebook but they're certainly right leaning. My father is in oil and abhors the green party. They're all Floridians, Texans and Louisianan.
Florida, Texas and Louisiana all voted Trump, you say your family members are right leaning, so they likely voted Trump if they voted at all. If you actually moved over here and lived in a red state do you really think you'd stay on the left any more than the rest of your family did? Well, actually you're LGBT status means you'd stay on the left, but I'm just remaking the point that living here is lot different than looking in from across the ocean. Glad you enjoy New Orleans.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1404 by Modulous, posted 10-20-2017 10:35 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1410 by Modulous, posted 10-21-2017 10:36 PM Percy has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 1409 of 4573 (822238)
10-21-2017 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1406 by xongsmith
10-21-2017 7:50 AM


Re: the attribution
xongsmith writes:
quote:
See, this was the main problem with Hillary - she was so virulently HATED by so many.
And yet she still managed to earn the second largest vote total in history. Indeed, Clinton Derangement Syndrome exists. But she still beat Trump's ass in the election.
How do you reconcile the two? She was LIKED by so many. If it weren't for the rigging of elections that the Electoral College produces, she would have been installed as President and then where would your argument go?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1406 by xongsmith, posted 10-21-2017 7:50 AM xongsmith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1411 by Modulous, posted 10-21-2017 10:54 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1410 of 4573 (822269)
10-21-2017 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1408 by Percy
10-21-2017 2:00 PM


Re: the attribution
This is probably too personal, but why breasts and women's clothes with a beard? Is this a subclass of LGBT where you're attracted to men who are attracted to men who have some of the characteristics of women'? Or you're attracted to women who are attracted to men who have some of the characteristics of women? Or it's just for yourself?
My breasts and my beard are nothing to do with attempting to attract certain people, that's for sure. In any event, it's a complicated issue but I typically use the word 'genderqueer' to summarize - though 'genderfuck' may also apply.
I'm sorry to hear that (though I didn't understand the part about "I do get the UK references...").
I mean, you keep drawing attention to my nationality - and I understand that not living there results in a certain distance from things which alters my judgement compared with those living there.
You would never vote for Clinton because she's too far right even though had she been elected these concerns you have about even entering the US would evaporate. You seem like a perfect example of voting against your own best interests.
I haven't disagreed in the short term. My interests regarding my vote transcend my immediate personal interests and are focussed on trying to build a better long term future.
Get what? Clinton is already on your side.
My vote. And changing her political position just before she begins a Presidential run regarding LGBT issues doesn't win credibility with me. Next time pick someone who has long time principles not someone who switches around for political expediency. If my vote is what is wanted, that is.
And you'll do it from the UK, rather than from the US where you would be now and closer to your family had Clinton been elected.
Yup. I doubt the USA will be a place for me to settle down any time in the next 20 years, which would be true whether Clinton won or Trump.
Not sure why you're saying slaughters may not be surmountable. The whole list was of slaughters being followed by victory four years later
I was referring to THAT election, not the next one. Bill Clinton's win was probably not something any Republican could have stopped - I was just saying that it would be surprising if Bob Dole was truly the person who would have got the most votes for the Republicans in the actual election.
Pat Buchanan? That joke? No, he would not have done as well as Dole. He was slaughtered 3-1 by Dole in the primaries.
They're all jokes, but he did pretty well at the start. The question is how many of the people that voted for Dole in the actual election would also have voted Buchanan? Then the question is, how many people that didn't vote for Dole in the election would have voted Buchanan? Maybe Dole truly does come out on top. That isn't the point of what I was arguing which was the system of selection doesn't actually confidently predict this information.
Don't be silly. It's a continuum that didn't just begin in 2016 of increasing experience, contacts, refinement of positions, alliances, successes, unpredictable events, luck, etc.
I'm not being silly. I agree it doesn't begin in 2016. That's rather the point I was making. I would hope that whoever runs in 2020 would also have been reasaonable candidate in 2016 - as their experience should precede 2016. If the candidate only has 4 years of experience that qualify them for the role - that's not great - right?
There was no such person on the radar.
Yes, it's the radar I am criticising!
More nonsense, for the same reasons I just gave.
Yes, I know your opinion. In an election, however, your opinion isn't the only one in consideration. Whether or not Hillary really is 'evil' is immaterial to whether she wins an election. It's how she's perceived.
The Democratic party is not going to move what you consider far enough to the left by 2020.
I thought I'd made it clear that I don't expect them to? I vote for main parties when they move in the right direction, when they move in the wrong direction I withhold my vote. Corbyn gets my vote, Blair does not. The UK Labour party shifted right with Blair's New Labour movement, this was initially successful for them but now moving back to the left has proven successful. I hope it continues to be that way.
Since you're thinking 50-100 years out, why do you care about 2020 anyway?
I was talking about what the Democratic party cares about. If they can't find candidates more optimally - that's a problem for them. If they want my 'vote' they'll find a way to move towards me politically - if they don't they don't get my vote. If I'm living there, I'd hope they'd move towards me sooner, rather than later of course.
I didn't see any nuance. What I saw was what you actually wrote:
quote:
Modulous in Message 1391 writes:
And that's because the Democratic party is the one that actually chooses the system its going to use to pick the nominee - and if that system is an inferior one then its their fault.
Here's what I actually wrote:
quote:
Without votes, without the campaign, without the opposition what can we say about anyone? As I said - let's see who the next nominee is. Then tell me that this individual could not possibly have been a superior option to Clinton in 2016.
It might be the case, but I was countering your position certainty by showing a reason to doubt. I don't need specifics to do this. Again, if the Democrats can't field someone with a better chance than Clinton (someone who can get say, a 5% margin rather than a 2% margin of the popular vote) the Democrats, and by extension America, is screwed.
That second paragraph concedes that maybe Clinton was the best, and pointing out that this is not a good omen for DNC.
Reread what you wrote again:
quote:
Modulous in Message 1391 writes:
And that's because the Democratic party is the one that actually chooses the system its going to use to pick the nominee - and if that system is an inferior one then its their fault.
This is obviously saying that of the two parties, the Republican party and the Democratic party, that "the Democratic party is the one that actually chooses the system it's going to use to pick the nominee," leaving the Republicans as the party that does not do this. Which is absurd.
Yes, that is absurd which is why I wouldn't put forward that position. Give me some credit. The nominee in my sentence clearly refers to the Democratic nominee - they certainly don't pick any other nominee after all. The Democratic part selects the Democratic nominee.
Or were you maybe just trying to be cute, stating the incredibly obvious in lengthy fashion that it is the Democrats that define their primary system?
I was giving you my reason as to why the Democratic party was to blame. Context helps, here it is:
I thought i was quite explicit. The less they need to learn is how to pick a candidate that excites people and/or that doesn't turn a significant number of people off. To listen to the swing voters. And so on.
Then the lesson you're talking about has to be directed not at the Democratic party but at the people who vote in primaries.
It's both, but more the former. And that's because the Democratic party is the one that actually chooses the system its going to use to pick the nominee - and if that system is an inferior one then its their fault.
The Democrats and Republicans use pretty much the same system - the differences are too minor to be worth exploring, even the issue of superdelegates. If the Democratic system of selecting candidates is inferior, then the Republican system is also inferior.
Yes, they are both inferior to other methods.
It's a level playing field. Plus, to say it once again, none of this is going to change by 2020. If you want to talk about significant change then you're going to have to return to talking in the context of your 50-100 year timeframe.
Yes, it's a level playing field. I'm kind of hoping the Democrats will find a BETTER way than the Republicans at selecting a nominee who has the best chance of winning. I don't expect it'll happen soon, but until they do, they will remain vulnerable to the 'protest vote' problem that can, in close races, lead to losses; along with, to use your characterisation, catastrophic outcomes.
Sure, the people in the Primaries could vote smarter - but their information is restricted because the selection method provides limited information so their blame is less.
Nonsense.
You should probably hold off from pulling that 'nonsense' trigger and just focus on the questions if you misunderstand my position.
You should probably be more clear when you're talking about 2016 and 2020 versus 50-100 years out, and not be so cute in your expression.
I have no idea what the time has to do with this point. I was talking about how different selection methods provide more information than the present selection method. It doesn't matter if that selection method is used in 1900 or 2100.
And...we're back into the 50-100 year timeframe, not that there was any hint that you were changing timeframes again. Anyway, good luck with all that. I'm just worried about getting through the next four years.
Seriously, there's no timeframe shift. I am simply talking about how the present system restricts primary voters information and thus the primary voters are less to blame than the system they operate in if and when errors are made.
But they obviously didn't say anything about assuming Clinton's election was assured.
quote:
Perhaps the most persuasive reason to vote for Hillary Clinton is Donald Trump. Trump is worse. I know that. The prospects of a Trump presidencywhat would be a deadly combination of arrogance and ignoranceought to frighten anyone. It frightens me. But my daddy, a gruff man who has lived all of his life on the coast of Mississippi, taught me that fear should never be the primary motivation of my actions.
...
That fact of Trump alone, and the democratic anguish that goes with it, cannot be the only rationale to support Hillary Clinton. Something more substantive is required of usof her.
Many, despite what I’ve written, will still vote for Clinton. I do not fault themespecially if they live in a hotly contested state like Ohio or Florida. Vote for Clinton to keep Trump out of office. I completely understand that. But I can’t vote for her.
I will vote down ballot, focusing my attention on congressional, state, and local elections. And I will leave the presidential ballot blank. I have to turn my back on the Democratic Party that repeatedly turns its back on the most vulnerable in this country, because the Party believes they have nowhere else to go.
Pretty much echoes my sentiments.
Again, absolutely nothing about believing Clinton's election was assured.
quote:
There is nothing in this world that will make me vote for Hillary
Pretty much covers that. Whether that person thinks she is safe or not, they wouldn't vote for her for political reasons. There is no indication in their words to suggest 'Because she is safe, but I don't like her as much as Sanders, I will vote third party'
I think there must be a great deal of overlap between the two groups you described who withheld their vote from Clinton, one who felt Clinton's election assured, the other with political reasoning. Why the former group wasn't using political reasoning you don't say, and this seems a nonsensical set of groupings.
quote:
The number of people who withheld their vote from Clinton while believing their action had true potential for resulting in a Trump election must be very small.
Do you have any evidence that this group must be very small?
Do you have any evidence that the group of people who withheld their vote, thinking it was safe was bigger?
You've changed back and forth between the 2016/2020 timeframe and the 50-100 year timeframe innumerable times. As I've said, your changes are hard to follow, sometimes clear from context, oftentimes not.
The problems I raised are for now The solutions I propose to those problems are unlikely to occur by the next election. Does this clear up your confusion here?
Once again you're completely unclear about when you're talking about. Is this about 2020 or 50-100 years from now?
Who knows? I doubt 2020 will see us with any of the changes, but the problems will still be there. And really my main thrust here was on pointing out that protest votes exist, can be better predicted with other systems and that we should probably try and get those systems instituted soon. It's possible that the Trump victory will motivate some more States to proportionally distribute their electoral votes by 2020.
Nope, and I still don't get it
Crazy.
The Democrats will analyze the result. There are a number of ways and means. Let's discuss one simple one:
In this example, Party A will want to move rightwards - there are lots of votes to grab by doing so. Likewise, Party B will want to move to the right. By successfully getting close to the median, they score the most votes.
Complicating things slightly is that, let us suppose that there are people in the tails that may opt third party if the main party goes too far away from them. Once they are already close to the median, it may be less advantageous to continue approaching it as they may drop more votes in their tails than they gain in the peak area.
So think of my third party vote as my means to try and shift the effective optimal strategy for the main party leftwards.
You know, politics never remains static. If you're still alive in your 50-100 year timeframe and the US finally hits that political sweet spot that you seek, it won't stay there for long. Things will change.
Staying simple, it has been a long march to the left with disturbing periodic swings back to the right.
You "voted" against your own best interests and by result (possibly - no way to know for sure) are still stuck in the UK. You know, you're not going to live forever. At some point, and I suggest sooner rather than later, you might want to jump down off that 50-100 year horse of principle you're mounted on and go off and do what you want to do.
I judge my best interests (and others too) to be long term movement to the left/progressive side of things. I expect it'll be decades before politics is generally close to me, but in the decades that I have been voting some progress to that end has been achieved.
And...we're back to the 50-100 year timeframe. You know, it's okay when people are interested in different things. I'm interested in 2018 and 2020. You're interested in 50-100 years from now. There's nothing wrong with that.
We were both talking about the fact that 2016 wouldn't be the same campaign as 2020; I was saying that if things don't change systemically you'll have the same problems then and going forward.
The 50-100 years thing is to explain why I vote the way I do today, because you expressed that it seemed to be against short term interests.
And...we're back to 2020. Yes, I already mentioned Maine and Nebraska quite a while ago in a reply to RAZD in Message 1354, and somewhere else I described the possibility of another state or two making that change, so I don't think it's absurd at all. What I think is absurd is when you take something I say about 2016-2020 and interpret it in a 50-100 year context, or vice versa.
I've not interpreted any such thing. But you were telling me that some of the changes I proposed aren't going to happen by 2020 and that it was fantasy and and so on. I was pointing out that some things might happen in that time frame. I'm glad we agree that some change may happen...and glacially over the longer term - it'll add up towards something I think works well.
A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step.
And...we're back to the 50-100 year timeframe. I think it's great that there are people working toward the eventual goal of IRV at a national level. No objections and nothing I ever argued against.
I'm glad you no longer see what I've been saying as fantasy.
By 'the system' I was talking about alternate ways of voting - either in the Primaries or the main election or both.
But most likely, nothing will change.
No point talking about how to move the glacier towards a better place, right? The glacier will just magically move towards a better solution without anyone arguing, persuading and uniting people to move it that way.
I wouldn't agree that there's no point talking about it, I just didn't even realize that's what you were talking about.
It was 50% of my first post - and a good amount of what I've been saying since.
You didn't make clear that you were talking about a 50-100 year timeframe until much, much later.
I mentioned 'long term' in Message 1360, my second message to you. Which I honestly didn't think would be interpreted as 2-5 elections. It was my fourth post where I told you that long term is more like 12-25 elections - Message 1391. Hardly 'much much later', I feel. And that was about my voting choices, whereas my first post was about the current problems.
My first post was 50% about the systemic problems. That was what you said you didn't realize I was talking about. The reply chain above should help clarify this.
What you actually said back in Message 1391 and that I was replying to was this:
quote:
Modulous in Message 1391 writes:
As far as who is President, that's true. But I'm not only focussed on which votes ultimately matter. The local popular votes contribute to the electoral votes. I have also discussed how better to distribute the votes that matter to reduce the 'bumpiness' the electoral college currently results in, I have also discussed better primary nominations...
The popular vote however, is not important. There is a correlation for obvious reasons, but the Mandate for President is given by the States, not the People. 25% of the People's votes can result in 50.x% of the State's votes.
You implied a correlation between the popular vote and electoral vote, not the winning.
I hope it is now cleared up that I was talking about becoming President. the popular vote is not important to becoming President, although there is a correlation between the popular vote and winning the Presidency.
But I've never objected to learning lessons from 2016. I just don't think that one of the lessons was that Clinton was the wrong candidate.
This was the Maginot line argument, incidentally. I suggested there were lessons to be learned and made my suggestion as to one of them. You accused me of trying to plan to fight 2016 in 2020, I said I was suggesting lessons be learned, you said you didn't understand what I said exactly, so I simplified and now you are saying we should learn lessons from 2016. I'm glad we got this far.
If Clinton wasn't the wrong candidate and if her marginal losses in key areas wasn't related to the protest vote issue, then most of the conversation is moot except in so far as the ideas I've raised can still avoid such a situation from occurring in the future.
Wow, you went back five days of posts for that one.
Not only is five days not a long time, but given we're posting probably less than one post a day in this back and forth, its not even a lot of posts. Especially when you consider the post in which I 'went back' was made on 19th October (Message 1391) so it wasn't even five days.
After living here a while you'd find the reality on the ground changing your current thinking quite a bit.
I doubt it would on this particular issue. It's not like the Party I tend to vote for now has a hope in hell of ever fielding a Prime Minister and my hatred of Conservative policies is pretty strong.
And...we're back to sending messages again.
I'm sorry, has that not been a consistent part of this discussion with regards to why I'd vote third party?
Obviously the way to avoid Trump in 2016 was to vote for Clinton.
Well that didn't work out so well did it?
Who said anything about "changing the people"? That preposterous insertion into the discussion is yours alone.
Well you did just say people should have voted Clinton, right? You only get that if those people change the way they vote, you can only achieve that by changing their voting philosophy.
Florida, Texas and Louisiana all voted Trump, you say your family members are right leaning, so they likely voted Trump if they voted at all.
They could also have voted Clinton, who is on the right. And that would be in line with their Facebook posts which expressed horror at the fact that Trump won. Maybe they voted Trump. But given 38% of Louisiana voted Clinton, and given they're European background...I'm inclined towards them having voted Clinton.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1408 by Percy, posted 10-21-2017 2:00 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1415 by Percy, posted 10-23-2017 11:44 AM Modulous has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024