|
PT6A posted:Only if we can build one on the Calgary city limits too. I haven't talked to a single person, save a single retard from Texas who's, ironically, befouling this loving country on a NAFTA visa, who actually supports Trump or even doesn't hate him. Every single person I've talked to in person, on social media, wherever, has expressed either sadness or anger that Trump got elected. Reminder that a ton of Trump voters were basically in stealth mode until they casted their votes and he won though.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:35 |
|
|
A Hand Maiden's Tale shouldn't have been a goddamn blue print. This is why you don't cut funding to English classes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Eej posted:Reminder that a ton of Trump voters were basically in stealth mode until they casted their votes and he won though. This isn't really true. Trumps vote was down from 2012 Romney vote,its just the Clinton's vote was down significantly more from Obama's comparable vote. Trump did better than expected, but that was the result of democrats simply not showing up rather than some silent majority bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
Caros posted:This isn't really true. This is re: all the people who experienced the need for severe Facebook friends pruning after their timelines suddenly erupted in pro-Trump remarks from people they weren't aware were stumping for Trump. The turn out was about the same but anecdotally speaking there were definitely a lot of people who were planning to vote Trump from the get go but didn't talk about it publically for reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
I kinda wonder how much of an effect the media had, since everyone was saying Trump was toast down the home stretch. Hillary got abandoned, I just don't know how much of that can be attributed to people 'staying home' out of protest vs. being lazy and assuming it was a foregone conclusion. I think the email thing with the FBI coming up at the last minute probably got Trump some last-minute votes that weren't accounted for in any of the polling. Overall, I fall on the side of "the whole campaign was a dumpster fire."
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:Pretty sure the political make up of Vermont is mostly white Libertarians. Im not sure I want to trade for that. Also, isnt Saskatchewan more of a Conservative holdout than Alberta these days? Alberta is still a pretty strong conservative holdout. Last federal election was still incredibly blue. Just that in our provincial election people were so loving fed up with the conservative voting base, and there was a large uprising of young voters during the election(Jim Prentiss basically said that he was wanted to remove tuition caps, so students realized they were about to have to pay out the rear end for tuition), and the Liberal Party was non-existent. So a lot of liberal voters ended up voting NDP, and the conservative vote was split between the Conservatives and the Wildrose. So the NDP ended up taking a lot more seats than they probably would have if the conservative votes hadn't been split.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
berenzen posted:Alberta Liberal Party was non-existent. What are these guys up to these days? Also, is there any chance Kenney doesn't win the PC leadership?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 10:18
|
|
|
Caros posted:This isn't really true. This won't be true once all the votes are counted. Clinton might end up <500k under Obama's vote total.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 10:19
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:What are these guys up to these days? It's a delegated convention so it's hard to know from the outside, but his organisation managed to take over the PC convention last week, and he forced two candidates out of the race and is now running against a couple of no-names so... I think it's in the bag.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 10:21
|
|
|
Caros posted:This isn't really true. You can't really attribute Clinton's loss to just one thing. In terms of votes cast, once absentee and provisional ballots are counted she probably will have turned out almost as many people as Obama in 2012, the problem is she strengthened his results in liberal bastions like California and New York while losing ground in the Rust Belt and the white rural Democratic vote absolutely collapsed. Trump won an absolute ton of white rural counties by like 40-50 points where Romney was winning them by 20-30. These are Republican areas going more Republican, but it was happening in crucial swing and Rust Belt states like Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Add to this the effects of Republican state voter suppression in places like North Carolina and Wisconsin and you get a pretty complex cocktail of depressed Democratic turnout and enhanced Republican turnout before you even get into any kind of enthusiasm bullshit. In addition, voter turnout may have been up since 2012, but it looks like much larger (like, by a couple percentage points overall) numbers of people either voted third party, wrote in a protest candidate (like John Kasich voting for John McCain) or left the presidential race blank while voting downticket. I think if someone were to go through and do the math, we would find that votes for downticket R and D candidates outweighed votes for Clinton and Trump by not insignificant margins. That being said, considering how Republicans were winning tossup Senate races I think this effect actually hurt Trump more than Clinton. Then we come to the blame game. A lot of people blame Clinton for abandoning the Rust Belt, assuming it would vote Democratic like it had for decades even if they didn't spend a lot of time there, while Trump made a strong push there. One political insider I know is blaming Clinton and her team for being bad at politics and never learning from their past mistakes. Some Hispanic leaders are blaming Clinton for taking the Hispanic vote for granted because of Trump's comments instead of more actively trying to galvanize them. Clinton herself (from internal calls) seems to blame the Comey letters, the first (the notice about new emails being found) for killing her rising momentum after Trump's awful October and the second (the announcement that there was nothing new in them) for galvanizing Republican voters just two days before the election by not only reminding them about her emails but also fostering that sense of the establishment being rigged for Clinton by the people who thought she should have been indicted in July. You absolutely can't point to one thing and say "this is why Clinton lost and Trump won". Any post-election assessment is going to include about a hundred factors. vyelkin fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
It was absolutely a dangerous cocktail of issues that produced the Clinton loss, but there's only some that progressives can reasonably do anything about. The Comey email stuff is more or less pointless to dwell on, as it was a one off rather than institutionalized issue- whereas they actually can work on the Hispanic turnout and appeal in the Rust Belt. It's silly for Clinton strategists to focus on the former. Not that Comey shouldn't be sacked for that bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
IMO that's the scary thing - that partisanship is pervasive enough to have become institutionalized; that America's institutions aren't as strong or independent as we assumed them to be. It's incredible that the GOP hates Obama/liberals enough to side with Putin/Russia, and not even just in the the enemy of my enemy is my friend sense either. Somehow winning has become more important than the republic functioning as the framers intended. There isn't a starker contrast in the GOP's obstructionism through all of Obama's 8 years vs him trying to work with Trump on the transition. The GOP was "supposed to be" punished for politicking in bad faith, but instead they'll control all three branches of government, and are positioned to further institutionalize partisanship through voter suppression. It's more than a demographic issue - it's systemic because the GOP have engineered it to be this way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:It's a delegated convention so it's hard to know from the outside, but his organisation managed to take over the PC convention last week, and he forced two candidates out of the race and is now running against a couple of no-names so... I think it's in the bag. I wish I could say I was honestly shocked at how quickly Sandra Jansen took her ball and went home, but I guess I shouldn't be (given the context that she said she would quit the party if he won.) Like, the narrative coming from Kenney opponents seems to be that being centrist/progressive is super important to PC voters and their party apparatus. Having the big tent in the middle of the spectrum seems to work more often than not. On the other hand, I think it's sort of telling that in the last election, everyone pretty much skipped right over other centrist parties like the Liberals and AB party when considering where to dump their protest vote, and went straight to the NDP. Part of it might be that Liberal is a useless brand in Alberta, if you're talking about anyone other than Kent Hehr, I guess. I guess I'm basically torn as to whether the provincial parties need to all be cracked open and reshuffled into right/centre/left or just say 'gently caress it' and go the two-party route.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Going two parties is really incredibly stupid and is how we'd end up with more "Harper vs Ignatieff" campaigns, not less. You would inevitably end up stifling the voice from the left because that's always who gets shat on when the political class realigns. Y'all are panicking horribly and forgetting that the loving libs made C51 a loving reality when they could have completely shot it down. The liberals aren't less likely to play security theater than the tories and most provincial lib parties are essentially Tory-lite already, Quebec's admittedly moreso. That said if you mean crashing the tories in two again, that's probably a good idea. Agnosticnixie fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:That said if you mean crashing the tories in two again, that's probably a good idea. Naw I was talking strictly about Alberta provincial parties. But if you want to talk about that, I have to wonder what's going on inside the CPC right about now. Like, are the hard-right SoCons saying "well we'll never win again and we couldn't push our agenda even when we had power" so they'll throw their hands up and elect a Kellie Leitch, or break up the party? I have no idea. What are the pundits forecasting?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Like, the narrative coming from Kenney opponents seems to be that being centrist/progressive is super important to PC voters and their party apparatus. Having the big tent in the middle of the spectrum seems to work more often than not. On the other hand, I think it's sort of telling that in the last election, everyone pretty much skipped right over other centrist parties like the Liberals and AB party when considering where to dump their protest vote, and went straight to the NDP. Part of it might be that Liberal is a useless brand in Alberta, if you're talking about anyone other than Kent Hehr, I guess. This is exactly why the Liberal party basically shat itself in Alberta. As for the Alberta party- it's never really had the political impact that it should, but that's more likely it doesn't really have the name recognition that the other parties do. It's pretty apparent where each of the big name parties lies. So for the uneducated that doesn't really pay attention much to political discourse and just vote for the names they know, the Alberta party falters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:I wish I could say I was honestly shocked at how quickly Sandra Jansen took her ball and went home, but I guess I shouldn't be (given the context that she said she would quit the party if he won.) There's still a very large chance that there will be both Wildrose and PC candidates in most ridings next election, so theoretically they could split the right again. However, the NDP is unpopular in Alberta - it's their fault oil prices crashed, y'know - and I wouldn't be surprised to see 'strategic voting' on the right to oust them from power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
I think the biggest thing is that I don't think anyone sees either the Wildrose or the PCs singularly defeating the NDP next election, and the other parties are so far behind those big 3 as to be insignificant in the next election (if not necessarily further down the road.) Like, I can see scenarios where "unite the right" happens and they win, I'm just not sure the party insiders want it, despite what their 'fanbases' might want. I think any Wildrose-types who are more amenable to a unity movement are banking on the idea that the old guard of PCs have been swept away with the last election, but if funding and general party attitude is any indication (particularly from the non-Kenney bloc of the PCs) then that's far from the case. I don't really root for either side, I just think a united right vs. NDP in the next election at least makes for some uncertainty and therefore it's more interesting and will get people talking and voting. If the right is split, I think the next election will be a really dull, foregone conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Did we all hear that a raccoon got into Keller Leitch's garage and they're calling it a leftist plot? https://twitter.com/btaplatt/status/797929766753964032 E: Selley says mockery from the media is exactly what Kouvalis wants, so I ask the thread: what is the correct response if not mockery? https://twitter.com/cselley/status/797951060455358464 Reince Penis fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Kouvalis ran Rob Ford's 2010 campaign and predicted a Trump win a long time ago. The fact that he's running Leitch's campaign scares the crap out of me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
The Liberals hopefully now know that if Trump can win the US election, their position won't be saved if they spend the rest of this term on feel good bullshit progressive fluff in a world where you can no longer hide the core of your philosophy, which in their case is being the skankiest corporate whores on the block and actually start making decisions that protect the well being of this nation and this planet. Unfortunately, I think they care less about retaining power than they do occasionally gaining power and using the time they have in office to funnel as much cash as they can their way before we boot them out in favor of the CPC, at which point they sit an cluck at the big bad CPC until we get sick of their bullshit in turn. That seems to have been their game at both the provincial and federal levels as long as I can remember. At least when the CPC forms government again they won't try to make it illegal for me to distract myself from the fact that we constantly swap one garbage government for another by driving out to the sand pits to shoot at crap with my SKS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
PK loving SUBBAN posted:I ask the thread: what is the correct response if not mockery? As soon as liberal democracy develops an effective way to marginalise anti-establishment demagogues I'll report back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:As soon as liberal democracy develops an effective way to marginalise anti-establishment demagogues I'll report back. Are you planning on going into cryostasis until the year 2300 to witness this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
Mulcair wouldn't take back his assertion that the eventual American president-elect is a "fascist", but he also refused to say the word again. Oh, Tom 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
THC posted:Mulcair wouldn't take back his assertion that the eventual American president-elect is a "fascist", but he also refused to say the word again. Oh, Tom I mean, he's not wrong, but he should at least have the balls to say it again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 08:27
|
|
|
The USA election was so horrendous that I've stayed away from politics just about everywhere since I've been so sick of it all. So getting back into canpol is nice because as bad as our own nasty politics can be, at least we're more polite about it in comparison. I just hope Leitch's desire to import trump political styles to Canada doesn't take hold.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:The USA election was so horrendous that I've stayed away from politics just about everywhere since I've been so sick of it all. So getting back into canpol is nice because as bad as our own nasty politics can be, at least we're more polite about it in comparison. I just hope Leitch's desire to import trump political styles to Canada doesn't take hold. I'm honestly more worried about all the prorogations giving someone the idea that they can run the country almost entirely without parliament in the first place, the far-right populism aside .
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 10:59
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:The USA election was so horrendous that I've stayed away from politics just about everywhere since I've been so sick of it all. So getting back into canpol is nice because as bad as our own nasty politics can be, at least we're more polite about it in comparison. I just hope Leitch's desire to import trump political styles to Canada doesn't take hold. It will. Canada is not a unique special snowflake that is above the rest of world politics, it just usually takes an extra ten years for global political developments to trickle down into the relative backwater that is Canadian politics. Right now we're having our Obama moment with Trudeau, and in a few years we'll have our Trump moment. As I said a few pages ago, the 2019 election could easily become a perfect storm of Trudeau not having met his promises, Trump's rhetoric having been normalized by three years of actually being president, and the NDP failing to offer a meaningful alternative, leading to a Trumpista sweeping to power in Ottawa on the backs of the exact same nativist, anti-immigrant, pro-white platform that Trump won with. If this thought scares you, and frankly it should, there are things you can do about it. Write to your MP and protest to try and make Trudeau keep his promises, especially on electoral reform, which would help neuter the threat of a Trump winning power with 39% of the vote. Get active in your local party, whether Liberal, Conservative, or NDP, and try to drive and motivate them to either keep their promises, nominate someone who isn't a fascist, or build a real left-wing alternative, depending on your party of choice. Talk to people about politics (in a friendly way) even when we're not close to an election campaign to try and keep these things on people's minds and reinforce the fact that it can happen here, but only if we let it. Canada is not insulated from the rest of the world and we will have a Trump candidate. The big thing is, we've now seen how not to handle a Trump candidate in the US and how not to handle a similar populist movement in the UK. Our goal has to be to find a better way to deal with such a movement, and we have to start thinking one up very quickly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:The way to addressing this is simple: you're not going to get them to stop being dipshitted bigots and racists by shaming them. If that were to work, then Trump's remarks about grabbing women by their genitals would have sunk him into levels that would have never gotten him elected. The only way you'll get these people onboard with leftist ideals is to not shame them about their behaviour and find ways to make their behaviour irrelevant. 100% agreed. I have some reaaal goddamn rural family and when times are good they don't seem to care much about social issues other than some grumbling. On the other hand when times are bad they'll screen at the top of their lungs about it and also, in my experience, drink a lot and get arrested trying to jump over Niagara falls. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Caros posted:This isn't really true. What? He beat the polls by like 4-6 points depending on which ones you believe. There was definitely a "silent majority" or more accurately its just the social desirability bias which has been seen before. patonthebach fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Canada is not insulated from the rest of the world and we will have a Trump candidate. The big thing is, we've now seen how not to handle a Trump candidate in the US and how not to handle a similar populist movement in the UK. Our goal has to be to find a better way to deal with such a movement, and we have to start thinking one up very quickly. Maybe we are just ahead of the states and Harper was our Trump, IIRC he was unironically called a fascist in these very hallowed halls of discussion. We're already ahead of the states on health care, welfare, taxation, death penalty, marijuana (as a national average you pedants), multiculturalism and maternity leave so why wouldn't we be ahead on Trumps. patonthebach posted:What? He beat the polls by like 4-6 points depending on which ones you believe. There was definitely a "silent majority" or more accurately its just the social desirability bias which has been seen before. I think the polling problem was Clinton friendly firms mostly oversampling Hillary voters. It gave the perception that Trump was trailing badly and why would anyone donate to a lost cause? It's a good strategy, starving the campaign is as good as cutting off the head BUT it didn't work, votes came cheap to Trump. quote:Donald Trump pulled off one of the biggest upsets in American political history last night and he was able to do it after spending nearly half of what the Clinton campaign spent. According to Reuters, Hillary Clinton raised over $520 million for her campaign compared to only $270 million for Trump, much of which came out of his own pocket. Given the current popular vote count those spending figures equate to roughly $8.80 per Hillary vote versus $4.57 for Trump. That's amazing to me, seeing democracy beat money warms the cockles of my heart. Postess with the Mostest fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:What? He beat the polls by like 4-6 points depending on which ones you believe. There was definitely a "silent majority" or more accurately its just the social desirability bias which has been seen before. Given Clinton won the popular vote while being down 6 million from 2012 I would not say there is a majority there. Thet may just be a more significant sign of how hosed things are, though, when such low density areas can give a loving idiot the house, the senate, and the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
Postess with the Mostest posted:Maybe we are just ahead of the states and Harper was our Trump, IIRC he was unironically called a fascist in these very hallowed halls of discussion. We're already ahead of the states on health care, welfare, taxation, death penalty, marijuana (as a national average you pedants), multiculturalism and maternity leave so why wouldn't we be ahead on Trumps. No Harper was our Reagan. patonthebach posted:What? He beat the polls by like 4-6 points depending on which ones you believe. There was definitely a "silent majority" or more accurately its just the social desirability bias which has been seen before. Postess with the Mostest posted:I think the polling problem was Clinton friendly firms mostly oversampling Hillary voters. It gave the perception that Trump was trailing badly and why would anyone donate to a lost cause? It's a good strategy, starving the campaign is as good as cutting off the head BUT it didn't work, votes came cheap to Trump. The likely voter screens were based off the 2012 election. That's the main reason that the polls were wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Whiskey Sours posted:No Harper was our Reagan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJqehECa2VY&t=19s I beg to differ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:What? He beat the polls by like 4-6 points depending on which ones you believe. There was definitely a "silent majority" or more accurately its just the social desirability bias which has been seen before. Current AP count, which isn't finalized yet because it won't be taking into account all the absentee and provisional ballots yet, has Trump winning 60,371,193 votes compared to 60,933,504 for Romney in 2012. Clinton currently has 61,039,676 compared to 65,915,795 for Obama in 2012. But again, once the remaining absentee etc. ballots are counted you should expect both those numbers to rise. Trump turned out fewer voters than Romney or, when everything is all counted, may have turned out slightly more, but the numbers are roughly constant. Clinton turned out fewer voters than Obama but probably not by very much once everything is counted because there are still several million absentees, from heavily Democratic states, that will bring her total number up a lot. Millions of people left the top of the race blank, voted, third party, or wrote in protest votes. Trump beat the polls but that's not because he turned out a significantly higher number than Romney, it's because he turned out a different electorate. He was winning white rural Republican counties by 40-50 points where Romney was winning them by 20-30, and in the Rust Belt that ended up being enough to swing several states away from the cities despite the cities being just as Democratic as ever. I'm not a pollster but if I had to guess why Trump overperformed it would be pollsters who thought the electorate would look like 2012 (energized minority turnout, low turnout of poor and/or low-education white people) and got it wrong. Also worth noting that national polls probably won't turn out to have been off by much. Clinton was up around 3-4% in national polling and once absentee ballots are counted she'll probably be up 1 or 2 full points in the national popular vote. The problem was she turned out large numbers in safe states but not in swing states, so blame the Electoral College rather than the "silent majority" I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:The problem was she turned out large numbers in safe states but not in swing states, so blame the Electoral College rather than the "silent majority" I guess. Also blame the Clinton campaign for deliberately choosing to neglect campaigning and outreach in places like that and pouring most of their resources into cities that were already going to vote for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Leave it to the left to refuse to step outside their echo chambers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:Leave it to the left to refuse to step outside their echo chambers. Maybe they should have stayed in the bubble even more. It worked for the Right! Eventually you can just fabricate nonsense and make promises that would be utterly impossible to keep, and the loving morons will eat it up. Honestly, I think that's the problem: Hillary/the Democrats didn't lie enough. The Simpsons episode where Homer is elected head garbageman was a warning, and now it's come to pass at the very highest levels of the United States government. Just lie your rear end off and these morons are so bereft of capacity for critical thinking that they'll eat it up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
You're just mad that the right is way better at lying to the gain the support of stupid idiots they obviously don't give a poo poo about than the left is about lying to stupid idiots that they don't give a poo poo about. Everybody is stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:35 |
|
|
Whiskey Sours posted:The likely voter screens were based off the 2012 election. That's the main reason that the polls were wrong. Yeah man willfully Incorrect voter screens leading to oversampling, same deal. EvilJoven posted:Leave it to the left to refuse to step outside their echo chambers. There was a perfect post in the election thread that said something like "I feel great about Hillary's chances when I'm talking to you guys but not when I talk to real people, what's up with that?" and they told him to stop arzying. I'll never find it again but goddamn it was just the perfect tldr for the entire election. PT6A posted:Eventually you can just fabricate nonsense and make promises that would be utterly impossible to keep, and the loving morons will eat it up. You voted for the guy who promised to implement every TRC recommendation within hours of its release oh wait I get your point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:06
|
|