|
VitalSigns posted:Well yes suggesting you put money on it if you're so sure sounds pretty dumb if all you said was "eh maybe" instead of It's funny how confidence turns into a kind of slinking backhandedness, when my money comes out. Like when a dog turns its body away from you and looks back out of the corner of its eye. "Maybe I didn't say that," intones the dog.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:20 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Are we going to have to replace "voting for the lesser evil" with "voting for the more competent evil"? At worst, it's both. Still an extremely cynical and defeatist way to look at things. Even if those are the only true choices, wouldn't you rather have someone both way more competent and way less evil in charge? I actually respect Hillary's pragmatism. Her line about being a progressive, but a progressive who likes to actually get things done was a very honest statement of her position and her realistic views of the power of the office she is running for. You could have the platonic ideal of progressiveness on the white house and it won't mean much if the other two branches of government and the big money oppose then at every step. This protects is when the other side is has the executive branch. I'd rather have a pragmatist move the needle leftward than an idealist tilting at windmills and look like an impotent fool claiming the moral high ground while actually standing on poo poo mountain
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:ronald reagan won the under-30 vote by 20 points in 1984 The big selling point that these people used to have was: 1.) The fear of communism 2.) How much better they were at managing the economy than the Jimmy Carter's and LBJ'S of the world. 3.) The cutting of social programs and the complete lack of them based on people's own prejudices. Ever since 1989 (the date at which many, many millenials either were too young, or had yet to be born) communism has been a dead concept around the planet. The GOP's policies of deregulation have been to blame for the housing crisis that put a lot of us out of work. Not to mention the concept of "welfare queens" doesn't seem to sell well with a lot of millennials. When you see the dipshits squaking about how any sort of cocept of government is apparently "socialism" it's met with rolled eyes by a good portion of the population now. That's their base apparently, and it's just seeped into their main candidates.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:I'm trying to come up with a joke about birth certificates and legitimate candidates. If my state rep says something racist the local dems were voting against him anyway, the local GOP won't hold it against him, and there aren't enough people who normally wouldn't vote at all who would be so personally offended by it that they show up. Minorities are scarce around these parts. Say something profoundly sexist, otoh, and you've just galvanized a bunch of apathetics to GOTV against you, alienated the female portion of your base, and attracted only a handful of votes in return. RagnarokZ posted:Hahaha, holy poo poo, you're right ... WHAM, Hillary wins. Not quite ... I'm focusing on downstream races with this. I'm arguing that candidates who say openly sexist things will lose. What pundits say doesn't matter. It has to be the candidates themselves. Hillary herself would be unlikely to directly benefit from this. Firstly because the GOP presidential nominee will be aggressively coached not to offend women and to be extremely careful to phrase things as attacks on Hillary personally, not women collectively. Secondly because the electoral college means that high turnout against an akin type downstream has to be high enough to flip a state from red to blue to help Hillary. For example, Mcaskill was a woman in both 2006 and 2012, but in 2006 her opponent wasn't saying things deeply offensive to women and getting focused media attention over it. So in 2012 she got almost 50% more votes than in 2006. Those extra votes weren't for her, they were against Akin. . Since women are much more likely to lean democrat than men the extra voters were more likely to support Obama than Romney, but Missouri is still a deep red state and Romney still won it overall - getting all it's tasty electoral votes. If we presume that sincere sexism is more frequent in the GOP than the dems, and that a female presidential nominee will lead the media to ask questions about candidates views on women at all levels of government, then we have an environment extremely hostile to GOP candidates downstream. The places this is most likely to happen are the deeply red ones as their candidates will be more comfortable saying sexist poo poo in public.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
McAlister posted:If we presume that sincere sexism is more frequent in the GOP than the dems, and that a female presidential nominee will lead the media to ask questions about candidates views on women at all levels of government, then we have an environment extremely hostile to GOP candidates downstream. The places this is most likely to happen are the deeply red ones as their candidates will be more comfortable saying sexist poo poo in public. How badly could this poison the GOP's well of candidates?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's funny how confidence turns into a kind of slinking backhandedness, when my money comes out. Like when a dog turns its body away from you and looks back out of the corner of its eye. "Maybe I didn't say that," intones the dog. Ok, buddy. I'll make you a deal. I'll toxx my account with a normal ban if Hillary win the presidency, if you agree to take a permaban if she doesn't win the presidency. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Nov 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
SedanChair already toxxed for Hillary...to win the Canadian election. at any rate toxxing is dumb, just put your money on predictit if you want to bet
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I suppose the question is whether this holds out? Looking at Public Policy Polling doesn't show such a dramatic demographic shift away from the Republicans. Millenials will be more supportive of things like gay marriage or black people existing (perhaps with a desire to have collars on them) but that's not an inherently 'Democratic Party' thing, hence Log Cabin Republicans and Ben Carson's popularity. Speaking as someone lucky in this regard, how difficult is it to split politically with your parents in such a polarised country like America? In the UK it's pretty standard for your extended family to vary but it doesn't tend to get in the way of relationships. Well a large part of the demographic shift is that younger people are less white.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:The big selling point that these people used to have was: honestly I'd say Iran and the oil crisis was more important to Reagan than the USSR, which was at that point a legacy geopolitical rivalry. unfortunately by TYOOL 2015 we've all seen how catastrophically awful neocon mideast policy is, so uh, so much for that Call Me Charlie posted:Ok, buddy. I'll make you a deal. I'll toxx my account with a normal ban if Hillary win the presidency, if you agree to take a permaban if she doesn't win the presidency. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Ok, buddy. I'll make you a deal. I'll toxx my account with a normal ban if Hillary win the presidency, if you agree to take a permaban if she doesn't win the presidency. Deal (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Deal 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Don't be a fuckin' wimp put up permas on both sides.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Don't be a fuckin' wimp put up permas on both sides. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
I like how a thread about how the GOP are becoming hilariously unstable and hopefully self-immolate has become yet another discussion as to Hillary's electability. I also love that a dude gets called a pussy because he won't put money down and then says "okay well I'll risk a single if you risk a perma." Have we found Jeb!'s SA account? Getting it back around: point of return posted:Well a large part of the demographic shift is that younger people are less white. This is true, but apart from Trump 9/11-ing the Latin American vote, haven't the GOP managed to get their dog whistle against minority / black Americans mostly gone unhindered while they pass poo poo like voter ID laws?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:
Not in the slightest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 13:44
|
|
|
So there's no disenfranchisement of black voters? At all?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
I feel like people were saying this exact thing in late 2008/early 2009, when the economy melted under Bush's watch, the wars in the Middle East were widely unpopular, McCain/Palin not only lost the election but managed to fracture the party, the far right was shutting down the government over the debt limit, and the outrage from the crazies had not yet been harnessed and tamed and controlled into the Tea Party. I believed it then, when it seemed like the GOP was fracturing right down the middle into a civil war between the ones who liked McCain and the ones who liked Palin, and far-right voters were voting absolute nutjobs into House seats. Didn't happen. Now the Tea Party (and the wave of discontent within the GOP that it harnessed) has been essentially absorbed into the mainstream GOP, government shutdowns are basically business as usual, Obama has presided over eight more years of a weak economy and Middle Eastern entanglements, and so on. The worst the GOP has to worry about right now is an unappealing presidential lineup, and that sure didn't hurt them much in 2012.  Call Me Charlie posted:why would I put my account on the line for nothing? The fact that she's backed by a Democratic presidential machine that's over two decades old, and Obama thoroughly disillusioned anyone who thought rejecting the establishment candidate would be an improvement? Bill built the modern Democratic executive branch. Of course, she's not particularly enthusiasm-inspiring, but with a base totally disappointed by eight years of Obama I don't think it was ever realistic to expect otherwise, and the Republican slate is pretty sad too. Call Me Charlie posted:Ok, buddy. I'll make you a deal. I'll toxx my account with a normal ban if Hillary win the presidency, if you agree to take a permaban if she doesn't win the presidency. immortalize this post (and this poster) in stone forever
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
I think the biggest stumbling block to a democrat victory in 2016 can be seen in this very thread. It is found in the tendency of educated progressives to openly pathologise their political opponents. I am not saying this is something the right wing is immune to either, they infact say the very same thing about us 'not living in the real world', but it is much less associated with them. These pathologies might even be true, but what use are they to us beyond a self-congratulatory wankfest about how we in the in-group are oh-so correct and they're clearly not. People see this and see a sort of social elitism, which is probably part of why Trump is so successful. Oh sure, he is economically the most elite in the primaries, but in the way he speaks and presents you can observe a more genuine salt-of-the-earth character that feels, for better or for worse, way more authentic than the facade the other candidates wear. I think that is where the battle-lines are drawn, not between the multiple ideological factions of the GOP, but in the polarisation of presentation between the rural 'good ole boy' and the urban suited cosmopolitan. Trump best bridges both those worlds (notice how he isn't even particularly religious, using it more as a prop than anything else, yet is still highly successful). The GOP isn't necessarily going to tear itself apart because all of the ideologies found underneath it's tent continue to share all of the commonalities that it work made in the past. They are having a bit of a time because of continuous losses in the culture war and the part of their base which is invested in that feels like the rest of the party isn't helping, but all that is required is a candidate that they feel supports their interests. Hell, if enough people buy into opposing the elitist-ey mentality the left has accrued, they might even win.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:I think the biggest stumbling block to a democrat victory in 2016 can be seen in this very thread. It is found in the tendency of educated progressives to openly pathologise their political opponents. I am not saying this is something the right wing is immune to either, they infact say the very same thing about us 'not living in the real world', but it is much less associated with them. Jump on in then, with your own confident wager.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
So has anyone figured out what kind of coalition the GOP can put together once there are enough non-white voters to make their current strategy untenable? Even if they manage to scrape out a win in 2016, the problem is still there. It isn't about the death of the GOP, or even the death of the American right. It's about the death of movement conservatism, and it just so happens that the GOP's current electoral strategy relies on movement conservatism in order to sustain a competitive national coalition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ They're gonna double down on the suppress voter turnout and gerrymander the poo poo out of everything strategy, even if they won't get the presidency again they'll still run the majority of the states into the ground and keep federal government completely dysfunctional Call Me Charlie posted:Ok, buddy. I'll make you a deal. I'll toxx my account with a normal ban if Hillary win the presidency, if you agree to take a permaban if she doesn't win the presidency. Don't be such a coward and put up a permaban if you're asking for them to take one Broken Box fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
I think the plan is to disenfranchise non-white voters and then use political wins to keep doing it for the next election for as long as possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Radish posted:I think the plan is to disenfranchise non-white voters and then use political wins to keep doing it for the next election for as long as possible. True, but even this plan is myopic and if they manage to benefit from it (big "if" from what i understand) then it's a temporary victory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
I think it honestly could be a good strategy for them depending on the how lasting their control of congress and state governments is. The presidency is probably out of their reach but I don't see a lot of ways to get around the new Jim Crow laws if there's no real will or ability to stop them and gerrymandered districts are updated each census.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
I feel like the GOP is in a sort of holding pattern where they simply will not be unseated in the House for a long while due to gerrymandering/general demographics of rural districts but at the same time they cannot make any real progress on the national stage with their current strategy and crop of frothing mad weirdo candidates. I am a little unsettled by how much progress they've made in downticket races; gaining control of state legislatures/installing Republican shill governors and pushing conservative think-tank model legislation through.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Jump on in then, with your own confident wager. Well to be quite honest I'm not sure. What I presented was a theory and an observation of the political left's weakness. How it will impact the result of the election is anyone's guess..
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Oh, ok. I am sure. Hillary Clinton is going to be President.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
I also feel like their current fractious state WRT to national-level politics is almost inconsequential. Like even if they were completely united and voting as a single block all the time with no problems what exactly could they do that they aren't doing right now? I feel like they won't be seeing the presidency for a long time and it's possible the Senate could swing back into D control next election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:Well to be quite honest I'm not sure. What I presented was a theory and an observation of the political left's weakness. How it will impact the result of the election is anyone's guess.. The poliical left's weakness is it had less money in the early 20th century and got crushed, tried guerilla tactics in the 60s/70s and got crushed again, and is now simpering centre-leftists who see previously strong centre-leftists like Hillary Clinton get curbstomped in the early 90s and decide to be milquetoast until their time has come (it won't come). That said, Hillary is going to win the nomination. I'm pretty certain she will win the GE.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Oh, ok. I am sure. Hillary Clinton is going to be President. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:I think the biggest stumbling block to a democrat victory in 2016 can be seen in this very thread. It is found in the tendency of educated progressives to openly pathologise their political opponents. I am not saying this is something the right wing is immune to either, they infact say the very same thing about us 'not living in the real world', but it is much less associated with them. people keep framing this as left vs right but the US up until the realignment of the 70s did not have a strong ideological left or right, a pragmatic liberalism dominated politics until it was destroyed by the newly forged Reaganite coalition. the problem is that it's very hard for a movement without a strong ideological basis to combat a movement that has one, because the supporters of the former are not motivated as much by its very nature. this is in comparison to euorpe, where strong ideological lefts and rights popped up very early and after murdering the poo poo out of each other for 150 years they finally decided that pragmatic centrism was the best solution and no, i think it's perfectly fair to pathologize modern Republicans, because it's a coalition of nutjob fascists, theocrats and libertarians. the only way to kill the GOP is for enough of the country to be so disgusted with them that they get thrown out icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Care to step up as well? Maybe you can put a 12-hour probation up on your end, to reflect your half-hearted confidence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Radish posted:I think it honestly could be a good strategy for them depending on the how lasting their control of congress and state governments is. The presidency is probably out of their reach but I don't see a lot of ways to get around the new Jim Crow laws if there's no real will or ability to stop them and gerrymandered districts are updated each census. Not getting the presidency fucks you when it comes to getting a Supreme Court that's willing to back your Jim Crow laws. D&D jokes aside, Scalia is not actually a lich and will retire someday, and the Senate can't be gerrymandered.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Care to step up as well? Maybe you can put a 12-hour probation up on your end, to reflect your half-hearted confidence. No thanks, I don't bet on elections.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Not getting the presidency fucks you when it comes to getting a Supreme Court that's willing to back your Jim Crow laws. D&D jokes aside, Scalia is not actually a lich and will retire someday, and the Senate can't be gerrymandered. And Ginsburg, who while awesome is rather old. I'd rather have a 5-4 or 6-3 even if we have some fairly moderate judges over a highly conservative 6-3 for the next 20 - 30 years. Most of the state-level voter fuckery and blatant racist gerrymandering are being allowed solely because the GOP controls the Supreme Court. Getting sane districts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Texas, North Carolina, and Virginia would swing the house to a much more moderate place, even if GOP controlled.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
baw posted:So has anyone figured out what kind of coalition the GOP can put together once there are enough non-white voters to make their current strategy untenable? Even if they manage to scrape out a win in 2016, the problem is still there. It's not like there aren't non-white conservatives. Racism in conservative movements tends to drive minorities out, but hating gay people and abortion and government spending (and even illegal immigration) aren't unique qualities only possessed by white people. For example, studies suggest that Hispanics - especially immigrants - tend to be more anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage than the general population. That's why many of the more credible GOP candidates are trying so hard to reach out to Hispanics - the risk of pissing off the racist white people is significant, but if it works and they manage to shed the racist reputation that's driving off minorities, there's no guarantee that non-whites will trend overwhelmingly Democratic forever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
minorities voting R is about as likely to happen as the R party disintegrating into warring factions. it's not going to happen, and it's hilarious that people still think that it will. we're seeing right now what happens to you as a republican primary contender who attempts to court minorities
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's not like there aren't non-white conservatives. Racism in conservative movements tends to drive minorities out, but hating gay people and abortion and government spending (and even illegal immigration) aren't unique qualities only possessed by white people. For example, studies suggest that Hispanics - especially immigrants - tend to be more anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage than the general population. That's why many of the more credible GOP candidates are trying so hard to reach out to Hispanics - the risk of pissing off the racist white people is significant, but if it works and they manage to shed the racist reputation that's driving off minorities, there's no guarantee that non-whites will trend overwhelmingly Democratic forever. icantfindaname posted:minorities voting R is about as likely to happen as the R party disintegrating into warring factions. it's not going to happen, and it's hilarious that people still think that it will. we're seeing right now what happens to you as a republican primary contender who attempts to court minorities The big problem is that we're seeing these populations as non-white. Non-whites do not tend to like the Republican party. However, whatever the hell "white" means shifts all the time. I grew up in a diverse city, and people like fitting in for the most part if they can. I knew a bunch of kids who would act completely white, speaking only English, and I'd be startled when their parents would call them and they'd suddenly start speaking fluent Spanish. While many Hispanics have a little darker complexion, most of them look just as white as, I dunno, Italians, if not more so. If Christianity is motivating these people to vote as well, Republicans could very easily start earning Hispanic votes. Honestly, if the Republican party is smart, it will start considering Hispanics white at some point. And then they can start pointing dogwhistley fingers at those OTHER assholes trying to take their poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
the thing is that they can't just turn off the racism and xenophobia without losing key demographics, especially now that Trump has broken the dog whistle
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:20 |
|
|
trapped mouse posted:The big problem is that we're seeing these populations as non-white. white ethnic catholics who immigrated in the 1800s are still significantly more Democratic than their native WASP counterparts, and that's been fading for 150 years. hispanics will not be anywhere close to equally R as non-hispanic whites within my or your lifetime. and as for black people, lol icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:53
|
|