|
Patter Song posted:Current rough estimate of final %s: Clinton ~48.5, Trump ~46.5, putting Trump closer to McCain territory than even Romney territory. Clinton +2 would mean that the polls showing Clinton +3 were basically right, and that the problem was that Clinton's votes were so grossly misapportioned that even a pretty resounding 2 point lead would leave her seriously underwater in the Electoral College. people would vote differently in an electoral college system than in a national popular vote. see all those millions of votes johnson got? a lot of them would be gone in a national popular vote. perhaps many more people would vote in non-swing states. also the polls were consistently wrong on a per-state level. the polls were not "basically right"
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:08 |
|
|
recently i've been wondering if the 'polarisation' of american politics isn't somewhat due to the decline of the white population share, making certain certitudes of implicit or explicit white power less viable as a consensus around which to negotiate 'centrist' policy. feels a bit mushy and idealist of an idea thoughPatter Song posted:Total vote count update: what will this come to in terms of percentage turnout though? turnout will always increase over time generally
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:nytimes commenters loving own
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Peel posted:again: improving margins among the wwc may well not come from directly converting trump voters, but getting people who stayed home because clinton = oligarch and trump = oligarch clown bigot rapist back to the polls Yeah anyone saying the idea is to finally magically appeal to those republicans from cities like Steubenville Ohio and Weirton West Virginia is deluding themselves. They will never vote for you, because you cannot sufficiently lie to them like Republicans do. Try to explain to a Steubenvillain that "We literally cannot build a new steel mill, it will cost half a billion dollars and the only reason we were able to build it in the late 40s was because we used illegal immigrants that your grandparents promptly kicked out of town once the task was done." Or try to explain to them that said steel mill will have about 10% of its original workforce because steel production is heavily automated. They just refuse to get it, and that writing has been on the wall for 35 years. But they keep voting for politicians who promise them it'll all be back any day now. Cities like Weirton woke up one day in 1981 to see a note on the fridge from the steel industry that said "Went out to pick up some cigarettes, be back soon." And they've been holding onto that note ever since. Any time they go out to dinner with friends they say "Oh yeah I'm sure he just got lost or maybe he decided to buy me a present! He must be planning something big for our anniversary!" while the rest of the country just sort of smiles, nods, and feels a deep sense of sadness. This year a con man showed up and said he knew where the steel industry was and he really misses her and he wants to come back, but he just needs a little bit of money. The con man can get the steel industry to come back if only she'd just give the con man a little bit of money. Well, Weirton gives the con man her whole life's savings and the rest of the nation comes by and has an intervention. Weirton gets pissed at the intervention, screams "Don't you say that! The steel industry is coming back! Trump said so!" and pulls out a gun, killing us all. Weirton is sitting there now, rocking back and forth, corpses of the rest of us strewn around her, waiting for a knock on the door that's never going to come. You can't appeal to that level of delusion. You have to shore up your support in cities like Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, that got upset for a few years, but then came to accept the past was the past and have been recovering since.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Lastgirl posted:Example of such garbage: https://twitter.com/jonathanweisman/status/797120114042793984 Is Minnesota not in the rust belt?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:nytimes commenters loving own lmao look at all the Hill folk seeking to blame something else besides their canidate being bad and the DNC picking someone who had the wrong message.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:REPEAT AFTER ME: THERE WAS NO POPULAR VOTE These stats are really important for calculating the PVI of Congressional districts (how red/blue they are in comparison with the national average) and for tracking the mood of the electorate and how various states vary from it. Without accurate final popular vote stats, you'll never be able to calculate the PVI for districts and how they've changed since 2012. This information is critical for getting a solid grasp on how the electorate changed vis a vis 2012. It'll likely not be finished until mid-December at the earliest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
this is a repeat of 2000. democrat sycophants want to blame everything but themselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong. They're not a compromise party, they're a conservative party that want the deniability of a liberal party so they let the Republicans get their hands dirty then wring hands about it all day long. NumberLast has issued a correction as of 16:58 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:REPEAT AFTER ME: THERE WAS NO POPULAR VOTE I keep forgetting that, yeah The idea that your vote matters less if you live in a solid red/blue state goes out the window in a one-man-one-vote system. Hell, I very nearly checked a box for Stein myself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:REPEAT AFTER ME: THERE WAS NO POPULAR VOTE I am Exhibit A as to why this is true. loving lol if you think my vote mattered in the state where Clinton's seat of power is, but I sure as poo poo would have voted in a purely popular vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Is Minnesota not in the rust belt? only rural white christians get to have economic anxiety
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:so the democrats have no choice but to be corporate stooges unless they get significantly OVER a supermajority? Sadly, yes. And it's not a blanket thing - many democrats are genuine people, some are owned by corporations. You have to work with the ones that are, whether you like it or not. And you're never going to get rid of them, partly because the electoral college is so drat good at entrenching parties into states so dems will keep voting in lock step in some states for guys that are total clowns. Work to reduce the influence, totally, I 100% agree, but don't think you're going to get rid of it forever. That'll only depress you when it takes 20 years to make inroads.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Welp. You know we got really close to going full on Facism during the Great Depression. FDR saved us. etalian posted:Remember when the finance sector crashed in 2008/2009 and Obama didn't use the DOJ/FBI to prosecute the individuals responsible for the crash? Pener Kropoopkin posted:Hey, remember when all the banks were illegally foreclosing on peoples' mortgages through robosigning? I'm glad they got a pleasant fine for stealing homes. Noooooo, you guys. Stop pointing out facts and telling the truth.  My beloved Obama, I will never doubt you. 😍 comedyblissoption posted:Democrats had their chance in the 2008 congress. They had gigantic almost super-majorities in both the house and senate and the presidency. They proceeded to use this overwhelming mandate for change and an economic crisis to be what ralph nader predicted: corporate stooges. They spent their 'political capital' licking the boot of wall st and the health and pharma corporations. No. It's not. Look, the Democrats loving suck. They are corporate shills selling out to the highest bidder. They are incompetent and short sighted. They lost a huge majority in 2008 practically overnight. But don't pretend they didn't need 60% to do anything. Republicans publicly swore they would filibuster and block everything. They gloated about it. It was their loving plan. There are recordings of Mitch McConnell straight up saying, "Yeah we're just not gonna let them do poo poo." There is no way to shut down a filibuster other than having enough votes to get the law on the floor. Democrats COULD have done something if Republicans would have worked with them but they filibustered and refused. If they had gotten 60% would they have done anything progressive? Probably not. They are all in the loving pockets of the banks/wall street/big pharma/etc pick your loving poison. But Republicans were dead set and dedicated to not giving them a chance to do anything. And that is simply a fact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:I feel like such a fool for being a Sander purist and rolling over so quickly into becoming a Hillbot. And then making fun about Trump and Trump voters and being wrong about everything in life. Me too buddy. Me too. I've started thinking about the "basket of deplorables" speech. Here's the thing: Hillary was 100% RIGHT in what she said in that speech. Yes, a fair portion of Trump supporters are homophobes, islamophobes, white supremacists, and generally lovely people. The Democratic party cannot be the party for the alt-right, the KKK, and people who spend half their days calling every minority every slur in the book on their Facebook accounts. We HAVE to call people who do that out on their poo poo. If we can't do that, we will lose the minority vote that we need to win elections, and more importantly, we lose our entire ethical and moral base. We have to continue to be the party that stands up to voter suppression, stands up for women's and gay rights, that says "black lives matter," that pushes for better wages and working conditions for the poor. It's who we are, and not doing that destroys our identity. She was also correct that we did need to reach out to the rural and economically disadvantaged, many of whom are NOT racist or anti-freedom of religion, to find out what they need and try to bring them into our fold. Though, truthfully, we kind of know what they want...jobs that aren't Wal-Mart and someone to say "if you like your gun, you can keep your gun!" She did NOTHING to reach out to them. And so we lost them. Also, a lot of these states she lost were decided by razor thin margins. She could have saved Michigan by going there and talking about how we're going to completely rebuild Flint's lead-tainted water system. She could have saved Wisconsin by going there and discussing racial profiling and brutality by the police nationwide and what her plans were to stop it. She could have saved Pennsylvania by going there and offering up a plan to help rehabilitate people who's lives have been hurt by drugs and alcohol. She could have saved Ohio by going there and outlining plans for increased energy production with renewables, nuclear, and even coal...all of which will create jobs! The kinds of jobs that Military veterans will be drat good at. She could have saved Iowa by going there and basically reciting Bernie's rural America policy word for word. She could have spent some of her hundreds of millions of dollars to create ads targeted to those markets re-iterating what she just told them. Some of them can run nationwide. Yes, that does require you reducing policy wonkery to 30 second soundbites. There are people who can do that for her. The problem is...I dunno if she believed in any of these things. Maybe she did. Maybe she didn't. The only thing I do know she believed in was that Trump was a sexist racist fascist rapist. She's, once again, basically 100% correct on that. But he offered a scapegoat and promised a wall, which is more than she did, so she lost. This reads way too much like a speech, but I'm submitting it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
god henry wallace kicked rear end. i still wonder what the 20th century might have looked like with him as president
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
on the popular vote: it's a flawed measure of how people would vote in a popular vote system, but the non-swing-state extra vote benefits both parties. it still forms a rough proxy that can be deployed as a rhetorical bludgeon to undermine the legitimacy of the extremely dangerous man about to occupy the white house, and of the electoral college system which should be abolished or reformed anywayJenner posted:Welp. You know we got really close to going full on Facism during the Great Depression. FDR saved us. they could have abolished the filibuster afaik but i understand why they were hesitant to do so. mistake in hindsight though
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:licking the boot of wall st and not criminally indicting ANYONE for the 2008 crisis or the loving robo-foreclosure scandal is entirely on obama and the democrats. you can't loving fall back and try to blame the republicans here. LOL that Hillary's own loving daughter is married to a Goldman Sachs dude. No, you guys, Hillary's totally legit and uncompromised. She will 100% go after Wall Street for realsies. loving kill me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Look we certainly need massive electoral reforms and I think abolishing the EC is on the list, but not the top of it. First we need automatic 18 year old registration, then Voting Day Hollida, then RCV or an even better system, maybe then we get to the EC. Besides are you really sure there are more Texas Democrats not voting then California and New York Republicans?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Peel posted:on the popular vote: it's a flawed measure of how people would vote in a popular vote system, but the non-swing-state extra vote benefits both parties. it still forms a rough proxy that can be deployed as a rhetorical bludgeon to undermine the legitimacy of the extremely dangerous man about to occupy the white house, and of the electoral college system which should be abolished or reformed anyway I'm not looking for the popular vote as a legitimacy measure, I'm looking for it as a useful statistic for measuring how red/blue Congressional districts are vis a vis the nation as a whole and how they have shifted in the past four years relative to the national shift, and you cannot really have an accurate sense of that until all of the votes are counted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Zythrst posted:Look we certainly need massive electoral reforms and I think abolishing the EC is on the list, but not the top of it. First we need automatic 18 year old registration, then Voting Day Hollida, then RCV or an even better system, maybe then we get to the EC. Besides are you really sure there are more Texas Democrats not voting then California and New York Republicans? Remember when people on this forum said any form of voting outside fptp is regressive and bad? And that only dues-paying members of the Democrats and Republicans should be allowed to vote in the primaries?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
blackmet posted:She did NOTHING to reach out to them. And so we lost them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
NumberLast posted:Remember when people on this forum said any form of voting outside fptp is regressive and bad? you don't pay dues to be a member of the democratic party and yes it does not make sense to allow people from other parties vote in your party's primary, why would you ever allow that
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
NumberLast posted:Remember when people on this forum said any form of voting outside fptp is regressive and bad? Oh yeah opening up the primaries is a big thing too, but Dems can just do that. Zythrst has issued a correction as of 17:19 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Zythrst posted:Besides are you really sure there are more Texas Democrats not voting then California and New York Republicans?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:hillary would've lost a national popular vote election. pointing to running up the score on a completely meaningless metric is sour grapes. wow you're doing a lot of being wrong in this thread edit: I'm editing that because that was a little rude, but Hillary likely would have won a national popular vote. I get your point that with the EC, the popular vote isn't a real popular vote because republicans in NY,CA,IL stay home, but it also works in reverse: democrats know Hillary is going to win in CA, so they don't vote or they vote for Harambe or whatever. Michiganders and Wisconsinites who believed their states were definitely blue and decided they didn't matter would have voted more carefully. And then there are TX democrats who say gently caress it for the same reason republicans in CA say gently caress it. The EC drives down turnout all around and you wouldn't get this tyranny of the minority stuff that happened this year. pathetic little tramp has issued a correction as of 17:21 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong. This this this! Peel posted:they could have abolished the filibuster afaik but i understand why they were hesitant to do so. mistake in hindsight though They could have and I honestly think they should have but they, being the beta cucks they are, didn't want to do it because it might get turned back around on them. Jokes on you dems! They strangled you out of relevance and you'll never get a chance at at filibuster! loving RIP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:you don't pay dues to be a member of the democratic party and yes it does not make sense to allow people from other parties vote in your party's primary, why would you ever allow that
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:you could allow independents. allowing independents makes sense considering how increasingly pivotal they are in elections. Okay I can see that, unaffiliated can have a voice, but if you're green or libertarian or forefathers or constitutional, you gotta stick with your own guy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
If the other side is opposing you and the compromise gives you garbage, then you go to the people, you put out adds, you barnstorm the country, and if you have Presidency you threaten to make life hell for those who oppose you and then follow through.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Okay I can see that, unaffiliated can have a voice, but if you're green or libertarian or forefathers or constitutional, you gotta stick with your own guy. I don't think anyone has ever argued for this though I'm actually not a registered Democrat, because I like the flexibility of my state's open primaries, but I cannot imagine ever voting Republican in a general. If our primary had been less competitive, though, I might have tried to influence the Republican one with my primary vote instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Zythrst posted:If the other side is opposing you and the compromise gives you garbage, then you go to the people, you put out adds, you barnstorm the country, and if you have Presidency you threaten to make life hell for those who oppose you and then follow through. This is making the assumption that the party in question actually wants the things that it says publicly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
also americans who make their main focus voting systems come off a bit parochial when there are FPTP countries with 3+ relevant parties (one just north of you) and a ton of european countries with proportional parliaments and all the same neoliberalism and neofascism problems you guys have
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Amniotic posted:This is making the assumption that the party in question actually wants the things that it says publicly. Well of course, but this is what I want going forward.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Peel posted:they could have abolished the filibuster afaik but i understand why they were hesitant to do so. mistake in hindsight though They didn't so they would have it when they were the minority. Like now. The filibuster has persevered because no party wants to be the one behind the 8ball they set up down the road. Of course current gop as it is, I expect them to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
yeah i've just been reflexively assuming the republicans will torch the filibuster day 1 would love to be wrong, if i am a lot of simpering liberal proceduralists will be vindicated
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Peel posted:also americans who make their main focus voting systems come off a bit parochial when there are FPTP countries with 3+ relevant parties (one just north of you) and a ton of european countries with proportional parliaments and all the same neoliberalism and neofascism problems you guys have FPTP is poo poo in the UK too, I haven't studded Canada. Here have a video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rGX91rq5I
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Peel posted:yeah i've just been reflexively assuming the republicans will torch the filibuster day 1 I think you're dead on, even if certain GOPers (Rand Paul, Jeff Flake) have said they want to keep the filibuster. At the very least, filibustering executive branch appointees (like, say, Supreme Court seats) is dead. If the filibuster is kept, it'll be kept for actual legislation only.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Peel posted:also americans who make their main focus voting systems come off a bit parochial when there are FPTP countries with 3+ relevant parties (one just north of you) and a ton of european countries with proportional parliaments and all the same neoliberalism and neofascism problems you guys have The FPTP countries with more than two also have even more larger problems with alignment between voter intent and the elected officials.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:08 |
|
|
NumberLast posted:Remember when people on this forum said any form of voting outside fptp is regressive and bad? lol who the gently caress would say that full preferential voting now
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:29
|
|
