uspol november: as it turns out they could not stump the trump

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > uspol november: as it turns out they could not stump the trump

«‹›594 »

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

shrike82 posted:

It was actually in '08 and regarding PA

It's funny that people look at this statement as being bad when it's a statement of empathy and understanding. Obama may not have done better by these communities but this statement on its own merits is "they were sold on things that didn't happen so now they're mad and bitter towards the wrong people because it's all they know."

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 21:32

Business Gorillas: Mar 11, 2009

Angry_Ed posted:

As pointed out, it was her turn in 2008 and Obama beat her. Unless we're going to keep saying that Hillary somehow conjured up 3.5 million votes to win the primary but couldn't rig the general to the tune of a couple hundred thousand, I don't think the content of the messsage was the problem so much as the delivery (or perhaps more likely, a lack of proper preparation as LK pointed out). This is why I've been stressing that you can replace all the people you want in the DNC, but it won't matter if you can't convince enough people. Unless it just so happens that the people who didn't vote Hilary and stayed home out of discouragement just wanted all the stuff Bernie was pushing and not any other reason for staying home like voter suppression or the never-ending scandal wars, and that all those people voting would offset anybody discouraged enough to not vote for whatever (probably bad) reason because they didn't like the platform. But that's all theoretical.

Also, if 1/4 of the people who vote Democrat are the "neoliberals" that people want to get rid of, then you're not going to win without them, and they also need to be convinced. As well as any of those so-called "independent" voters who just want to be assured things are going to get better for themselves and stay that way and allegedly don't care about the R or D next to a person's name.

I imagine the laws that outline those powers in Canada are a lot less vague than the 10th Amendment.

here's an idea for you:

we've lost every branch of government on the federal level and most of the states. what we have been doing hasn't been working, why not try literally anything else?

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:25

pacerhimself: Dec 30, 2008; by Fluffdaddy

Oh good I didn't miss the weekly Clinton slapfight, this will surely go different than last week's.

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:25

Paradoxish: Dec 19, 2003; Will you stop going crazy in there?

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

It's also not fair that bumbfuck Wyoming gets the same level of Senatorial representation as loving California but that's another conversation. It might not matter as much if the House of Representatives was adjusted over the past 100 years but lol

It's not "fair," but there's more merit to it than you're letting on. The US is a huge country and regional interests are going to vary from place to place. Assigning all representation purely on population would make it legitimately difficult for large parts of the country to have their interests heard. California and New York shouldn't be able to dictate policy to the rest of the country.

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:25

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

No, his administration was just another in a long line that has done nothing for this demo.

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:26

rscott: Dec 10, 2009

NathanScottPhillips posted:

Why? There's been a lot of talk about the EC being stupid but nobody can articulate their thoughts. This type of thinking comes from poor civics knowledge. We have states and individual states govern their people which leads to better local government. Lots of countries do this it's not unique. The reason for the Electoral College is that a state is more than the sum of it's population and population is not the end-all be-all of how much power a state should have. States have value beyond their small population numbers and likewise large populations have value in themselves but only up to a certain point.

Federalism as implemented in the United States is dumb as hell too

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:26

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Its bad because it will not do its job and exercise it's veto over a manifest ly unqualified candidate.

It's a shell institution with no remaining purpose.

There are plenty of other institutions, such as the senate and gerrymandering, that give appropriate representation to rural areas. As it is they are over representated.

You have it backwards. Gerrymandering is the undemocratic institution that should be eliminated.

Xae posted:

So you're saying that it having some people's vote matter more than others is a good thing?

I'm not talking about people's individual vote, I am talking about state's individual votes.

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:26

HorseRenoir: Dec 25, 2011; Pillbug

https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/804038449300959232

mmm that's good schadenfreude

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:26

SaTaMaS: Apr 18, 2003

Angry_Ed posted:

As pointed out, it was her turn in 2008 and Obama beat her. Unless we're going to keep saying that Hillary somehow conjured up 3.5 million votes to win the primary but couldn't rig the general to the tune of a couple hundred thousand, I don't think the content of the messsage was the problem so much as the delivery (or perhaps more likely, a lack of proper preparation as LK pointed out). This is why I've been stressing that you can replace all the people you want in the DNC, but it won't matter if you can't convince enough people. Unless it just so happens that the people who didn't vote Hilary and stayed home out of discouragement just wanted all the stuff Bernie was pushing and not any other reason for staying home like voter suppression or the never-ending scandal wars, and that all those people voting would offset anybody discouraged enough to not vote for whatever (probably bad) reason because they didn't like the platform. But that's all theoretical.

Also, if 1/4 of the people who vote Democrat are the "neoliberals" that people want to get rid of, then you're not going to win without them, and they also need to be convinced. As well as any of those so-called "independent" voters who just want to be assured things are going to get better for themselves and stay that way and allegedly don't care about the R or D next to a person's name.

I imagine the laws that outline those powers in Canada are a lot less vague than the 10th Amendment.

Not to mention that she won the popular vote in the 2008 primary but lost because of the delegate votes :ironicat:

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:27

Academician Nomad: Jan 29, 2016

Paradoxish posted:

It's not "fair," but there's more merit to it than you're letting on. The US is a huge country and regional interests are going to vary from place to place. Assigning all representation purely on population would make it legitimately difficult for large parts of the country to have their interests heard. California and New York shouldn't be able to dictate policy to the rest of the country.

Oh no empty land won't be represented as fully as human beings!

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:27

foobardog: Apr 19, 2007; There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend

JeffersonClay posted:

Yes, I'm explaining why the prediction was wrong.

The overwhelming pre-election narrative was one where Hillary won, the question was by how much. If you're a marginally motivated democratic voter, the stakes are low, so turnout among these people goes down. If you're a moderate Republican who wants hillary to beat trump-- but not with a big mandate -- you might vote trump to shrink the margins that everyone is expecting to be large. If you're a diehard trump supporter, you don't listen to the corrupt media anyway so there's not a corresponding turnout drop in his base.

Here's the thing. If you're truly so far up your own rear end you'll choose an animated poo poo golem palling around with white supremacists over an uninspiring, but competent politician so she doesn't get too uppity, then gently caress you. Go off and be a suburban shithead with their head in the sand.

These are the type of Democrats that cause us to end up with half-measures like Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the ACA because they listen to the equivocating media and thinking themselves rational because they think the answer between police killings and a broken window from a protest must be somewhere in the middle.

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:27

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

Paradoxish posted:

It's not "fair," but there's more merit to it than you're letting on. The US is a huge country and regional interests are going to vary from place to place. Assigning all representation purely on population would make it legitimately difficult for large parts of the country to have their interests heard. California and New York shouldn't be able to dictate policy to the rest of the country.

The vast majority of the country lives in about five states, and right now the states where most people don't live are dictating policy to them. In the grand scheme of things California dictating policy would end a fair sight better than Wisconsin, given the current political climate.

I don't understand why leftists are so quick to defend a lovely system that makes it harder for them to win.

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:27

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

The polls were not wrong on the national level. Clinton was said to be up 1-5 points and she'll end up winning the popular vote by 2. How come people can't grasp this?

If you look at the states that actually decided the election, the polling was off by a lot. (7% in WI, 3% in PA, 4% in MI)

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:27

Party Plane Jones: Jul 1, 2007; by Reene; Fun Shoe

JeffersonClay posted:

If you look at the states that actually decided the election, the polling was off by a lot. (7% in WI, 3% in PA, 4% in MI)

Ohio polls were off by 8/9% IIRC.

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:29

Inferior Third Season: Jan 15, 2005

a shameful boehner posted:

Oh, James Comey's letter absolutely hosed her and probably accounted for as much as a 0.5%-1.0% difference in voter participation/totals in a lot of states.

My point is that against someone like Donald Trump it shouldn't even have been that loving close. But it was, even though Clinton and co. just blithely assumed their invulnerability in WI/MI/PA. WHOOPS

It wasn't just the Comey letter, though. The electoral college is designed to give rural states more than their fair share of power, which translates into Democrats needing a few extra percentage points just to break even. And then key states implemented voter suppression tactics, meaning the Democrats needed to squeeze out another few percentage points more. And then we had the Russians interfering by slow-dripping negative stories about only the Democrats for months on end. And the media as a whole dropped all pretenses of doing proper journalism, and held the two candidates to completely different sets of standards.

Put it all together, and it is remarkable that Hillary polled as well as she did for as long as she did, and remarkable that she won the popular vote by a significant margin. She only lost because 230 years ago a bunch of slave-holding states were afraid of being told they couldn't have slaves anymore by more populous states when they were setting up the method of choosing presidents.

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:30

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Lightning Knight posted:

The vast majority of the country lives in about five states, and right now the states where most people don't live are dictating policy to them. In the grand scheme of things California dictating policy would end a fair sight better than Wisconsin, given the current political climate.

I don't understand why leftists are so quick to defend a lovely system that makes it harder for them to win.

This would have more weight if it was made before the elections rather than after a loss.
But the "moderate" HRC wing was too busy prematurely celebrating its win.

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:30

Soy Division: Aug 12, 2004

HorseRenoir posted:

https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/804038449300959232

mmm that's good schadenfreude

Joe Walsh's main source of income is his Chicago regional radio show, he's going to bend toward whatever he thinks his audience of cops and suburban goombahs is thinking.

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:31

rscott: Dec 10, 2009

Like, holy poo poo it's 2016 and our constitution has pretty much remained the same since the late 18th century. The whole thing should have been torn up and done over a hundred years ago.

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:31

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Academician Nomad posted:

Oh no empty land won't be represented as fully as human beings!

This post shows total lack of actual thought.

Alaska has one of the lowest populations of human beings but has some of the greatest natural resources in the entire US from strategic oil reserves, to the most protected land and wildlife, to science laboratories, to being a strategic part of US national defense.

Likewise Florida has a huge population but very little strategic value apart from Disney World.

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:31

foobardog: Apr 19, 2007; There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend

rscott posted:

Like, holy poo poo it's 2016 and our constitution has pretty much remained the same since the late 18th century. The whole thing should have been torn up and done over a hundred years ago.

It's what the Framers wanted!

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:32

Paradoxish: Dec 19, 2003; Will you stop going crazy in there?

Lightning Knight posted:

The vast majority of the country lives in about five states, and right now the states where most people don't live are dictating policy to them. In the grand scheme of things California dictating policy would end a fair sight better than Wisconsin, given the current political climate.

I don't understand why leftists are so quick to defend a lovely system that makes it harder for them to win.

The "vast majority" of the country doesn't live in five states. The top ten most populous states in the country account for less than half of the total population and the distribution is significantly more even beyond that point.

I also wasn't defending the EC and I'd be happy to see it go. The person I was responding to was talking about the Senate.

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:32

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

NathanScottPhillips posted:

This post shows total lack of actual thought.

Alaska has one of the lowest populations of human beings but has some of the greatest natural resources in the entire US from strategic oil reserves, to the most protected land and wildlife, to science laboratories, to being a strategic part of US national defense.

Likewise Florida has a huge population but very little strategic value apart from Disney World.

This is dumb because we don't as a nation hold the value "one utility of national resource, one vote"

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:32

Calibanibal: Aug 25, 2015

I believe that this mysterious 1/4th of democrats can be persuaded to support wealth redistribution by careful rational appeals via targeted dialectics

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:34

Angry_Ed: Mar 30, 2010; Grimey Drawer

Business Gorillas posted:

here's an idea for you:

we've lost every branch of government on the federal level and most of the states. what we have been doing hasn't been working, why not try literally anything else?

Here's an idea for you. We've lost every branch of government on the federal level and most of the states. Your smug hot takes haven't been working, why not try literally anything else?

My entire thesis has been that you and a lot of others here that act like you have no real interest in fixing the problem, instead giving out half-hearted responses when you're not busy getting high off of everyone's schadenfreude. So instead of sitting here telling me to try something else because I'm trying to make you do real work, why not loving do the real work. Stop with the loving eternal slapfight and figure out how to actually convince people. Stop with the smugness and actually engage people like a goddamn human being; you know, the thing you kept telling everyone else to do?

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:34

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Trabisnikof posted:

This is dumb because we don't as a nation hold the value "one utility of national resource, one vote"

And every single person has the ability to vote in their state. States vote for the president based on those results.

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:35

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

https://twitter.com/snowden/status/703733273504018432

�porqu� no los dos?

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:37

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Angry_Ed posted:

Here's an idea for you. We've lost every branch of government on the federal level and most of the states. Your smug hot takes haven't been working, why not try literally anything else?

My entire thesis has been that you and a lot of others here that act like you have no real interest in fixing the problem, instead giving out half-hearted responses when you're not busy getting high off of everyone's schadenfreude. So instead of sitting here telling me to try something else because I'm trying to make you do real work, why not loving do the real work. Stop with the loving eternal slapfight and figure out how to actually convince people. Stop with the smugness and actually engage people like a goddamn human being; you know, the thing you kept telling everyone else to do?

That's rich coming from someone crowing about HRC destroying Sanders and Trump for the entire run up to the election and then immediately turning around and yelling at the "Bernie Bros" for being unconstructive.

And as far as I can tell, DnD isn't the DNC dlist (although looking at the HRC-skew, who knows).

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:37

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

Paradoxish posted:

It's not "fair," but there's more merit to it than you're letting on. The US is a huge country and regional interests are going to vary from place to place. Assigning all representation purely on population would make it legitimately difficult for large parts of the country to have their interests heard. California and New York shouldn't be able to dictate policy to the rest of the country.

This is absolutely wrong. The Senate and House still exist and still have geographically designed voting, which represents "regional interests" rather well. Even with a fully proportional system, there'd still be some level of apportionment of the regional interests in the replacement structure.

And frankly North Dakota and South Dakota ain't different, they can share a delegation.

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:38

Spacebump: Dec 24, 2003; Dallas Mavericks: Generations

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

https://twitter.com/snowden/status/703733273504018432

�porqu� no los dos?

You should have posted the response.
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/804020951008608257

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:39

HannibalBarca: Sep 11, 2016; History shows, again and again, how nature points out the folly of man.

Doccers posted:

Just to test the waters here, what are the thoughts on John Hickenlooper running for 2020?

Call me superficial and silly, but I legitimately believe that the name would be a significant impediment. Sort of like how Hitler was happy that his name wasn't Shickelgruber.

Spacebump posted:

You should have posted the response.
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/804020951008608257

Snowden cannot fail, he can only be failed. :smuggo:

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:39

foobardog: Apr 19, 2007; There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend

Trabisnikof posted:

This is dumb because we don't as a nation hold the value "one utility of national resource, one vote"

Remember this is a system where certain states had to make sure their "resources" did get counted. It was only 3/5s, but hey, politics is about compromise.

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:40

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

NathanScottPhillips posted:

And every single person has the ability to vote in their state. States vote for the president based on those results.

Setting aside the factual inaccuracies of your statement (not even all citizens get to vote). You can't really argue against a values mismatch with a technicality. Sure people vote then states vote, but my vote matters less because I don't live in a rural state. That's a fundamental incongruity with our stated values of one person one vote.

It doesn't matter how much oil Texas or Alaska has or if Hawaii or Florida has more fish, our values are stated as "one person one vote" even if our founding documents never lived up to our values.

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:40

Angry_Ed: Mar 30, 2010; Grimey Drawer

shrike82 posted:

That's rich coming from someone crowing about HRC destroying Sanders and Trump for the entire run up to the election and then immediately turning around and yelling at the "Bernie Bros" for being unconstructive.

And as far as I can tell, DnD isn't the DNC dlist (although looking at the HRC-skew, who knows).

Show me the ~~spot~~ posts.

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:40

Paradoxish: Dec 19, 2003; Will you stop going crazy in there?

fishmech posted:

This is absolutely wrong. The Senate and House still exist and still have geographically designed voting, which represents "regional interests" rather well. Even with a fully proportional system, there'd still be some level of apportionment of the regional interests in the replacement structure.

It's a good thing that I was literally talking about the Senate, then. Jesus christ.

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:40

rscott: Dec 10, 2009

NathanScottPhillips posted:

And every single person has the ability to vote in their state. States vote for the president based on those results.

And this is as backwards a way of choosing the executive as other practices dating from 1789, like bloodletting

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:41

Calibanibal: Aug 25, 2015

Angry_Ed posted:

My entire thesis has been that you and a lot of others here that act like you have no real interest in fixing the problem, instead giving out half-hearted responses when you're not busy getting high off of everyone's schadenfreude. So instead of sitting here telling me to try something else because I'm trying to make you do real work, why not loving do the real work. Stop with the loving eternal slapfight and figure out how to actually convince people. Stop with the smugness and actually engage people like a goddamn human being; you know, the thing you kept telling everyone else to do?

Friend, I think this is a false dichotomy. The best way to convince people is through dialectics; dialectics can only be honed by diligent practice. The more Business Gorillas expounds upon Marxist-Leninist principles itt, the better equipped they will be to handle face-to-face encounters with skeptical moderates

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:43

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

The most overtop was unsurprisingly

McAlister posted:

Well my perma ban will kick in soon so I just want to say gently caress Bernie Sanders on my way out.

gently caress Bernie Sanders. gently caress his low life dirty attacks on Clinton's character.

I blame this entirely on him and the lies that endlessly spewed from his campaign emails and surrogates. All the ridiculous poo poo you guys dismissed as "just Reddit"? That poo poo wasn't just Reddit. Or just bros. It was talking points straight from Bernie to everyone subscribed to his emails. Bernie was the king bro.

A man is defined not by his best or worst moments but by the sum total of his life. A woman, however, is defined by the nastiest thing someone you like said about them. Regardless of its truth. And Bernie said a lot of really nasty untrue things from a position of popularity on the left.

He's a nuclear hating, science denying, fake medicine pushing, narcissistic loon only a very small step better than stein. And he isn't even one that gets good things done. Clinton negotiated SCHIP for heavens sake. Bernie's Green Mountain Care fell apart under its own stupidity. Clinton secured funds for medical care for 9-11 first responders. Bernie refused to listen or take seriously reports that the VA was inadequate to serve the needs of vets and people died while he dismissed the problems out of hand. Cause in stupid moron ideologue land socialist medical programs are perfect and don't have huge wait times no matter how underfunded.. The man literally championed building a nuclear waste facility on a fault line over a water table in Texas and turned away three members of the impoverished migrant community who lived there after they drove 2000 miles to beg him to stop. Why? Because he doesn't need votes from Texas. Just like Trump, if you don't have something he needs Bernie doesn't have a shred of empathy or respect for you.

Clinton is such an amazing candidate that it took the FBI, the KGB, systemic sexism hampering her turnout, systemic racism driving turnout for Trump, and being back stabbed from the left repeatedly to take her down and she still almost made it. And of those five things the last is the only one that was a conscious choice by a loving jackass who put his own ego above the nation's welfare.

Bernie Sanders can go to hell where he will be burned in an ever burning pyre kindled from printouts of all the slanderous talking points he mailed out in the primary. He's not fit to dry clean Hillary's pantsuits.

And no. He couldn't win. Trump would have kicked his rear end in the debates and made him look like the senile rear end he is. We saw what Trump did to one-stump wonders in the primary with liddle Marco. Ohh did Trump say a mean thing about vets? Bernie killed vets by ignoring their pleas for medical help. Trump promised to completely eliminate taxes for the poorest replacing their current paperwork with an I-Win form. Bernie ran openly on shared sacrifice and raising everyone's taxes. Including the very poor with regressive payroll and sales taxes. How far up Bernie's rear end do you have to be not to realize that's a non-starter? Trump wants to repeal Obamacare? Bernie did too! And Medicaid. And SCHIP. And tricare. And hey very poor person, now you can pay a payroll tax you can't afford to get what you used to get for free under those programs that Bernie stupidly wants to cannibalize. Florida hates how sanders praises Castro and Michigan loves how much better Trump is at yelling and channeling anger. The environmentalist wing of the party would cross lines to vote Trump over Bernie due to his promise to unilaterally use executive authority to shut down the cleanest 20% of our base power grid and zero out the budget for nuclear power research.

Bernie was a loving train wreck and I'm done pretending otherwise.

That's my meltdown. Bye.

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:43

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

shrike82 posted:

That's rich coming from someone crowing about HRC destroying Sanders and Trump for the entire run up to the election and then immediately turning around and yelling at the "Bernie Bros" for being unconstructive.

It's amazing how you make up poo poo about posters you disagree with just so you don't have to honestly reply to their posts. Post Angry_Ed crowing about HRC destroying Sanders and Trump or :gb2gbs:

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:45

Angry_Ed: Mar 30, 2010; Grimey Drawer

shrike82 posted:

The most overtop was unsurprisingly

So you're telling me you don't have a post from me saying I did the things you alleged.

shrike82 posted:

That's rich coming from someone crowing about HRC destroying Sanders and Trump for the entire run up to the election and then immediately turning around and yelling at the "Bernie Bros" for being unconstructive.

Show me the posts.

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 21:32

Business Gorillas: Mar 11, 2009

Angry_Ed posted:

Here's an idea for you. We've lost every branch of government on the federal level and most of the states. Your smug hot takes haven't been working, why not try literally anything else?

My entire thesis has been that you and a lot of others here that act like you have no real interest in fixing the problem, instead giving out half-hearted responses when you're not busy getting high off of everyone's schadenfreude. So instead of sitting here telling me to try something else because I'm trying to make you do real work, why not loving do the real work. Stop with the loving eternal slapfight and figure out how to actually convince people. Stop with the smugness and actually engage people like a goddamn human being; you know, the thing you kept telling everyone else to do?

i mean i've tried talking to you like an adult

sorry my posts haven't fixed the country in 3 weeks, i guess?

# ? Dec 1, 2016 00:46

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > uspol november: as it turns out they could not stump the trump

«‹›594 »