|
Keyser_Soze posted:It could be said that the Anti-Hillary "Stay Home Don't Vote!" "pretend Bernie Bro's for TRUMP!!!" people and bots wouldn't have been as successful against Sleepy Joe. Some of them used Biden as a tool as it was. In the post-primary/pre-convention phase when "Here's how Bernie could still be the nominee!" was fashionable, there was a lot of "I mean, if you don't want Bernie couldn't we at leave have gotten Biden?" grousing. If nothing else, it was a way to tell that someone's problems with Clinton had nothing to do with her centrist policies, friendliness to big business, or votes on the Iraq invasion.
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
Looking back, my personal blindspot was thinking that the debates mattered even slightly, and that HRC had "won" them at all. I blame leftover Sorkin nostalgia for the idea that you can achieve political goals by being a debate club nerd
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 00:16
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:Is that supposed to be a wouldn't? The forums as a whole were betting on Hillary and even those who thought Trump had a chance were coming from a place of "Don't underestimate him/Hillary is more unpopular than you think" rather than a "Put all my chips on Orange!" Way, besides a few notables. Supposed to be a "could", sorry. We were all mostly betting Bernie because we all mostly realized Hillary *could* lose. None of us thought she would actually lose but we generally thought Bernie had better overall odds than Hillary did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 00:25
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Looking back, my personal blindspot was thinking that the debates mattered even slightly, and that HRC had "won" them at all. I blame leftover Sorkin nostalgia for the idea that you can achieve political goals by being a debate club nerd I just thought the majority of American voters couldn't possibly be that consciously horrible. Shows me I guess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 00:26
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I just thought the majority of American voters couldn't possibly be that consciously horrible. Shows me I guess. I mean you weren't wrong just that's not how the rules work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 00:30
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I mean you weren't wrong just that's not how the rules work. If you were too stupid or lazy to vote against Trump you're also a piece of poo poo, disenfranchisement notwithstanding. E: that's the hypothetical "you" there, not you in particular
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 00:38
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I just thought the majority of American voters couldn't possibly be that consciously horrible. Shows me I guess. It's not limited to American voters. In retrospect, the Brexit referendum and the 2010 Toronto mayoral election should have been warnings about 2016.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 00:38
|
|
|
The HBO/UKChannel4 Brexit movie with Benedict Cumberbatch is still worth a watch to see the wonderful Mercers and Cambridge Analytica do one of their "trial runs". https://www.amazon.com/Brexit-The-Uncivil-War/dp/B07QQVC649/
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 00:45
|
|
|
tapping into otherwise disaffected voters is a powerful thing
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 01:12
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Ten feet might work but Boston has had higher snow piled up than that in just the past decade. The problem isn't just how much snow falls total, its where you put it when you plow the streets and shovel the walks. That's usually in the medians and the area between the sidewalk and the street, which is where these chargers would also be located. I'm aware of snowfall in Boston; I've lived here my whole life. It does not routinely get piled up anywhere near that high, and if it does it's highly localized and does not last for long
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 01:22
|
|
|
Watching huge truckloads of snow getting incinerated by giant flamethrowers in Boston is a trip.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 01:28
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:Watching huge truckloads of snow getting incinerated by giant flamethrowers in Boston is a trip. My wife, who was then my girlfriend, was living in the Financial District that winter. I visited a couple of times and walking the sidewalks was like being in western front.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 01:39
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:tapping into otherwise disaffected voters is a powerful thing it's 10,000 times more than that
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 02:43
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I mean you weren't wrong just that's not how the rules work. I still think we should do something about that whole "sometimes the person who gets less votes wins anyway" thing. It's happened twice now in my lifetime and both times it led to disaster.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 04:03
|
|
|
Our country was founded on the idea that lovely rural assholes should be more powerful than the cities. The only way we change the whole "less votes wins" thing is a new constitution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 04:08
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:Our country was founded on the idea that lovely rural assholes should be more powerful than the cities. The only way we change the whole "less votes wins" thing is a new constitution. It can be changed by constitutional amendment; the process for amending the relevant clause would be more complex, but it's doable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 04:19
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Yeah I think Biden wins in 2016 because regardless of what we may think of her, misogyny and negative name recognition were extremely crippling to her chances. The margins were so razor thin in so many states, I don't think Trump gets quite as many people out to vote for him if there's no Hillary to vote against. Biden wouldn't have won by much IMO, but the negative name recognition alone was enough to get a lot of spite votes against Clinton. Those same people became Trump loyalists after the fact sure. Not only this, but Biden would have been much better positioned to run against Trump's populist appeal than Clinton. Biden would win or retain a lot more blue collar voters than Hillary every could IMO which could easily be the difference, as close as Hillary came anyway. He could easily have won PA, WI, and/or MI.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 04:21
|
|
|
Hillary's actual enthusiastic support was massively, comically overrepresented in the media class, it feels like, and resulted in a LOT of distortion of what the popular narrative was. Especially with how it seems like the consensus simply was that it was not a competitive election.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 04:56
|
|
|
I think Biden might have won the 2016 campaign, as it played out because he probably gets enough of the rural, white male voters who flipped to Trump to win the Midwest states Hillary lost. But he wouldn't have run in the 2016 race as it went, the race would have been very different in terms of media coverage and tone. Trump's constant misogyny wouldn't have had the same constant target. Maybe against a female VP pick, but the dynamic and focus would have been different. Maybe Trump manages to "stay on message" better and be more "disciplined", but who is to say if that helps or hurts him. So much of the day to day of the race was about reacting to whatever crazy thing happened on Trump's Twitter while he was taking a poo poo and watching Fox News. The Glumslinger fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Sep 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 05:11
|
|
|
And his son died. That’s a good enough reason to not run.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 07:37
|
|
|
Given Biden's 2020 campaign was infamously barely a thing at all, I'm really not so sure how he would have done 2016, but then my brain actively refuses to think about that topic for some reason. The Before Times being like a dream of nonsense, probably.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 08:16
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Given Biden's 2020 campaign was infamously barely a thing at all, I'm really not so sure how he would have done 2016, but then my brain actively refuses to think about that topic for some reason. The Before Times being like a dream of nonsense, probably. I thought the general view of him at the time was that he was more conservative than Obama, and after Obama's failure, 8 more years the same (or likely worse) wasn't going to motivate people to get out and vote. Since Clinton was runner up to Obama, and seeing how Obama got clowned on by the GOP, I think she sold herself on the hope that while she may not be as progressive as Obama sold himself as being, she would be more adept at being able to get things done and handle the opposition. Given the last 2 years, who knows how it would have turned out if he actually ran and won, though. Honestly, I don't think I've ever seen the Democrats being more progressive than during their time as opposition against Trump, and even now the only reason they actually have a hope in the midterms is 1) the conservatives getting big wins in the SC, 2) the Dems actually managed to pass some legislation after like a year of nothing, 3) scaring the public shitless that democracy is on death's doorstep (because they've done nothing to protect voter rights and the GOP has gone hog wild and Trump won't stop calling for a violent overthrow). cgeq fucked around with this message at 11:30 on Sep 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 11:25
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:Our country was founded on the idea that lovely rural assholes should be more powerful than the cities. The only way we change the whole "less votes wins" thing is a new constitution. No one aside poasibly Franklin ever imagined cities with millions that outweighed multiple rural states.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 12:09
|
|
|
If we lived in a world where rural areas in the US were left wing along the same vein as Jeffersonian Republicans, goons would be falling all over themselves to defend the Electoral College and the Senate. Whenever a Republican gets elected president and/or the Republican Party gains control of Congress, their opinions on American federalism, states’ rights, the filibuster, etc. also do a 180.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 12:22
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:If we lived in a world where rural areas in the US were left wing along the same vein as Jeffersonian Republicans, goons would be falling all over themselves to defend the Electoral College and the Senate. Eh, the regional divisions haven't changed that much over time. It's always been about slavery, and still is. The names of the parties notwithstanding. Clarste fucked around with this message at 12:41 on Sep 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 12:38
|
|
|
WTF. How did I miss this? https://twitter.com/ericgarland/status/1565783546136068096
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 13:05
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:WTF. How did I miss this? Wasn’t this is same thing that ‘kids for cash’ judge in Pennsylvania was doing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 14:08
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Wasn’t this is same thing that ‘kids for cash’ judge in Pennsylvania was doing? It sounds much worse actually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It can be changed by constitutional amendment; the process for amending the relevant clause would be more complex, but it's doable. So it's effectively impossible, since the current process to amend the constitution requires ratification from 3/4 of states, most of which are small, rural and benefit immensely from the existence of the senate and electoral college. As a barometer of how impossible that would be, the 38th most populated state is Nebraska. Ahead of them you'd also have to get New Mexico, Kansas, Mississippi and Arkansas on board with ratification. Even if you managed to somehow convince all the small Democrat states like Rhode Island and Delaware to vote against their own interest, you'd still have to convince ~15 Republican states to go along as well. Only a few of which (Texas, Florida, Ohio) would actually benefit electorally from it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 17:52
|
|
|
Seph posted:So it's effectively impossible, since the current process to amend the constitution requires ratification from 3/4 of states, most of which are small, rural and benefit immensely from the existence of the senate and electoral college. As a barometer of how impossible that would be, the 38th most populated state is Nebraska. Ahead of them you'd also have to get New Mexico, Kansas, Mississippi and Arkansas on board with ratification. Yes, amending the constitution is difficult. It's doable. It requires mass consensus. The actual difference is the relevant senate clause is "entrenched", but it's now believed that that can be effectively undone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 18:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yes, amending the constitution is difficult. It's doable. It requires mass consensus. The actual difference is the relevant senate clause is "entrenched", but it's now believed that that can be effectively undone. My point is that you will never get mass consensus since it requires dozens of states and their citizens to agree to reduce their representation in the federal government, so characterizing it as "doable" within the current system is not accurate. It is effectively impossible. For the smallest states their representation would decline by a factor of 3; the states I mentioned in my previous post would be closer to a decline of 1.5-2. You are not going to get states to agree to that voluntarily since there is zero upside for them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 18:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yes, amending the constitution is difficult. It's doable. It requires mass consensus. The actual difference is the relevant senate clause is "entrenched", but it's now believed that that can be effectively undone. Is anyone aware of if there are any good books/articles that detail the process of how this has been accomplished during previous efforts? I was wondering how you'd even go about organizing for a constitutional amendment today.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 18:49
|
|
|
Seph posted:My point is that you will never get mass consensus since it requires dozens of states and their citizens to agree to reduce their representation in the federal government, so characterizing it as "doable" within the current system is not accurate. It is effectively impossible. For the smallest states their representation would decline by a factor of 3; the states I mentioned in my previous post would be closer to a decline of 1.5-2. You are not going to get states to agree to that voluntarily since there is zero upside for them. A number of the amendments were passed by governments constituting populations which effectively diminished their power by expanding it to other populations. This isn't new, it's not impossible, and the primary distinctions relative to other amendments are that the relevant clause is entrenched and the necessary rhetorical lift is much easier than, say, suffrage. You don't need a new constitution to do this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 19:04
|
|
|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:I still think we should do something about that whole "sometimes the person who gets less votes wins anyway" thing. You can cut down the power of this effect much more easily by significantly increasing the size of the House. It also makes gerrymandering much more difficult. No constitutional amendments required.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 19:16
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yes, amending the constitution is difficult. It's doable. It requires mass consensus. The actual difference is the relevant senate clause is "entrenched", but it's now believed that that can be effectively undone. and to be clear you can do any one of the following: 1) leave the senate as-is, but reallocate all power just to the house and leave the senate some vestigial pointless authority (jury for impeachment for example). the constitution says nothing may take a state's equal representation in the senate, not that the senate must matter 2) just abolish the senate. everyone remains equally represented, with zero senators. 3) amend the amendment clause, to strip out the "no amending the senate" and then amend the senate. this is both more complicated, and more pointless, than just converting the house into a parliament
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:and to be clear you can do any one of the following: Option 1 is basically the route the UK took with the House of Lords (over a very long period of time), so there's plenty of precedent here! You could (for example) make it so that bills passed by the House advance to the President's desk when passed by the Senate or after a reasonable period of time, or something, rendering it an almost entirely advisory body. Same with appointments.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Wasn’t this is same thing that ‘kids for cash’ judge in Pennsylvania was doing? Worse on several levels that hearken back to various evangelical and mormon moral rehabilitation schools often tactically placed over national borders to help them legally obfuscate the human rights condition of the abducted children
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Looking back, my personal blindspot was thinking that the debates mattered even slightly, and that HRC had "won" them at all. I blame leftover Sorkin nostalgia for the idea that you can achieve political goals by being a debate club nerd the debates did matter, but trump won them all. I think the blindspot we had was underestimating the republicans. thinking that they all arrived at supporting bad actors and policy out of some sort of misunderstanding, instead of just being ontologically evil and lying about it. Automata 10 Pack fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Sep 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 00:10
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:the debates did matter, but trump won them all. Whomever you think won debates won the debates. There's no objective measure. That's why they're pointless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Whomever you think won debates won the debates. There's no objective measure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 00:20
|
|