|
Judgy Fucker posted:
As a non-Brit: my guess would be that, on most issues, the SNP would have a de-facto coalition with Labour, and the overall effect would be minor. Is that not the case? Or are a bunch of places suddenly electing Tories because the SNP and Labour are splitting the vote?
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2023 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:55 |
|
|
CNN having a townhall with Nikki Haley. CNN so desperate to suck up to the Chuds and self sabotage. EDIT: Oh, and Mike Pence later on. Gatts fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Jun 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2023 20:06
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:As a non-Brit: my guess would be that, on most issues, the SNP would have a de-facto coalition with Labour, and the overall effect would be minor. Is that not the case? Or are a bunch of places suddenly electing Tories because the SNP and Labour are splitting the vote? I was wondering the same thing, clearly SNP and labour would join in a coalition government? Is there any difference?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2023 20:18
|
|
|
Why would they have Pence on? He's the most boring man to ever exist. Not even the MAGA crowd cares about him. I thought CNN was going right to follow ratings but a Mike Pence town hall sounds like it would be right up there with watching paint dry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2023 20:21
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:I was wondering the same thing, clearly SNP and labour would join in a coalition government? Is there any difference? The SNP is pro-independence, which would be pretty big wrinkle in forming a coalition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2023 20:30
|
|
|
Gatts posted:CNN having a townhall with Nikki Haley. CNN so desperate to suck up to the Chuds and self sabotage. It's pretty standard to air town halls for non-incumbent/open primary races; CNN held them among six GOP candidates in Feb. 2016, as well as over the following months when only three candidates remained in the race. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Jun 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2023 21:03
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:Why would they have Pence on? He's the most boring man to ever exist. Not even the MAGA crowd cares about him. You're forgetting that the management at CNN is desperately, paint-huffingly stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2023 21:22
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:Two parties-plus. In the long run the other parties rarely matter*. The reason why the UK has a slew of minor parties with actual representation is because their single-member districts are a lot smaller than the US', so things like regional politics and cultural differences can matter a lot more when it comes to elections. But overall it's the Tories and Labour and no one else. That's how things usually seem to happen in parliamentary systems with lots of parties, at least these days. For example, in Israel, there's like a dozen parties in the Knesset, but the only ones that really matter are Likud and whichever center-left party happens to be dominant at the time. All the far-right parties ally with Likud, all the parties to the left of center-right are forced into uncomfortable alliances because it's the only way they have any chance at all at opposing the far-right bloc, and the Arab parties might as well not exist because all the other parties refuse to work with them. If anything, the higher number of parties only increases the ideological divide, because the smaller far-right factions wield even more power than they do in the GOP, and have been able to wield that power to drag the Likud coalition's policies well to the right of Likud's own stances. "It's in the interest of the elites to keep us divided" does not necessarily lead to "therefore the two-party system is the ideal instrument of division". Regardless of how many parties there are, on any given issue they're largely going to split into "for this issue" and "against this issue". Ideally, the parties would be ideologically diverse, and therefore the split would look different depending on what issue you're looking at. In practice, though, the state of politics these days has kind of obliterated those little nuances and forced parties into broad ideological coalitions where those little disagreements over the minor details are drowned out by the overall cultural clash. BRJurgis posted:It's not a conspiracy, and the American voters (and non voters) aren't blameless either. It's just the natural result of our motives and methods. We are captured in this, and I'm not sure how there could ever be a mass united labor movement when we are so easily driven to otherize people and lump them into "that team". I've had people accuse me of being a liberal, a libertarian, a trump supporter, just from their interpretation of one point or another. "BAM you're in a box, and I already know how I feel about the people in that box." Not saying it's new, it's just no accident and more effective than ever. Labor has always had to deal with these issues. One of the big challenges the heyday of the labor movement faced was being lumped into the "communist" box. And another one they faced was that plenty of workers were on board with racism and bigotry. I'd say we honestly have a much easier time dealing with that than back in the day when segregation was the official law of the land.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2023 21:23
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:"It's in the interest of the elites to keep us divided" does not necessarily lead to "therefore the two-party system is the ideal instrument of division". Regardless of how many parties there are, on any given issue they're largely going to split into "for this issue" and "against this issue". Ideally, the parties would be ideologically diverse, and therefore the split would look different depending on what issue you're looking at. Captain_Maclaine posted:You're forgetting that the management at CNN is desperately, paint-huffingly stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2023 21:40
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That's how things usually seem to happen in parliamentary systems with lots of parties, at least these days. For example, in Israel, there's like a dozen parties in the Knesset, but the only ones that really matter are Likud and whichever center-left party happens to be dominant at the time. All the far-right parties ally with Likud, all the parties to the left of center-right are forced into uncomfortable alliances because it's the only way they have any chance at all at opposing the far-right bloc, and the Arab parties might as well not exist because all the other parties refuse to work with them. If anything, the higher number of parties only increases the ideological divide, because the smaller far-right factions wield even more power than they do in the GOP, and have been able to wield that power to drag the Likud coalition's policies well to the right of Likud's own stances. That may be the case for some parliamentary systems, but it's far from being the whole truth. Compare Sweden and Finland for example, as overall they are quite similar to each other. But in one, you have a bloc system and usually minority governments. In the other, there have been only majority governments for decades now and just about any party will get along with each other except nowadays the right wing populists and leftist parties have unresolved issues. Jasper Tin Neck posted:Hallituksen luottamuksen mittaamiselle on maailmalla erilaisia käytäntöjä. Suomessa käytännöt ovat sellaiset, että hallitusta pitää kannattaa joka käänteessä, joten apupuolueeksi ryhtymisestä ei ole mitään hyötyä. Siksi vähemmistöhallitukset ovat täällä hyvin harvinaisia, toisin kuin muissa Pohjoismaissa, joissa riittää, että hallituspohjaa vain siedetään, joko nimittäessä tai välikysymyksessä. In Sweden the opposition needs an absolute majority to remove the government, so it's possible for a minority government to sustain as long as they can get enough people from other parties to tolerate the government and abstain. But in Finland abstaining votes don't count, so the government has to secure a majority of votes in every no confidence vote. The only sure fire way to secure that support is to give the supporting parties seats in the cabinet, because otherwise there's going to be splits sooner than later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2023 21:52
|
|
|
The GOP held 20 different debates during the 2012 presidential cycle. CNN sponsored seven of them.
Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Jun 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2023 21:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That's how things usually seem to happen in parliamentary systems with lots of parties, at least these days. For example, in Israel, there's like a dozen parties in the Knesset, but the only ones that really matter are Likud and whichever center-left party happens to be dominant at the time. All the far-right parties ally with Likud, all the parties to the left of center-right are forced into uncomfortable alliances because it's the only way they have any chance at all at opposing the far-right bloc, and the Arab parties might as well not exist because all the other parties refuse to work with them. If anything, the higher number of parties only increases the ideological divide, because the smaller far-right factions wield even more power than they do in the GOP, and have been able to wield that power to drag the Likud coalition's policies well to the right of Likud's own stances. Well not being openly evil is like a little achievement you can award yourself, and then you can both-sides and sensible moderate your way to satisfaction. Things could be worse, but we've fine tuned the parameters people are able to think within. We never should have won this game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2023 23:01
|
|
|
The UK also has FPTP which is loving awful and basically makes people think they have to vote for one of the big parties else they are 'throwing their vote away'
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2023 23:04
|
|
|
Yeah, NZ finally got so fed up with their electoral system and threw it out to replace it with MMP which seems to work pretty well, honestly. It's still dominated by the two major parties, but voting for a third party doesn't feel like throwing your vote away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 00:05
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:The SNP is pro-independence, which would be pretty big wrinkle in forming a coalition. Theoretically at least, a coalition does not need to agree on every single issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 00:22
|
|
|
Clarste posted:Theoretically at least, a coalition does not need to agree on every single issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 01:01
|
|
|
Gatts posted:CNN having a townhall with Nikki Haley. CNN so desperate to suck up to the Chuds and self sabotage. I don’t think m either of those are sucking up to chuds. The chuds literally wanted him killed/captured during Jan 6. Haley is a washed up politician who’s probably angling for a cabinet level position if trump doesn’t win the nomination. Haley is closer to what would traditionally be pushed on the GOP side by an outlet like CNN but after reading that tear down in the Atlantic it looks like their boat is listing. Getting the most boring politicians on possible seems like an attempt to make up for doing what they did for trump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 13:30
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:I don’t think m either of those are sucking up to chuds. The chuds literally wanted him killed/captured during Jan 6. Haley is a washed up politician who’s probably angling for a cabinet level position if trump doesn’t win the nomination. Sounds like they're still trying to appeal to the 'moderate conservative' demographic that doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 14:06
|
|
|
Alctel posted:The UK also has FPTP which is loving awful and basically makes people think they have to vote for one of the big parties else they are 'throwing their vote away'
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 14:11
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Sounds like they're still trying to appeal to the 'moderate conservative' demographic that doesn't exist.  And they are gettable for the GOP medium-long term, but it has to change course first. Somebody like Haley has no chance with the current primary electorate - and despite what a lot of media talking heads are fantasizing about, neither does Tim Scott.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 14:17
|
|
|
Tim Scott looks like a goddam genius compared to the rest of the field. He ran a competent annoucement campaign, will get at least whole number of a percentage of primary voters, and is angleing for a job that is gettable though he has a different cushy job as senator if he does not. Speaking of senators: Finestine at least said she's not running for re-election ( and will hopefully be convinced to retire before hand ) and I heard an interview with Barbra Lee who is gearing up for the California primary. Who seems like a good fit - if she wasn't 76. I'm not sure who I would vote for if I lived in California - though I'm not sure I could even afford to in a town that wasn't dying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 14:34
|
|
|
Twincityhacker posted:Tim Scott looks like a goddam genius compared to the rest of the field. He ran a competent annoucement campaign, will get at least whole number of a percentage of primary voters, and is angleing for a job that is gettable though he has a different cushy job as senator if he does not. Faint praise, but sure. He's still dumb though because being a senator in SC is a job for life unless you leave it, and VP for Trump's second term is a dead-end just like it was for Pence. But yeah, he's probably the most competent. Comically, he wouldn't be in the race at all if Nikki Haley hadn't appointed him to the Senate seat in the first place. Haley is also running for VP though I'm not sure she realizes it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 14:44
|
|
|
Lee is a good pick although given that she would be as old as Feinstein at the end of her second term, I would like to imagine that she would pledge to only serve one term. Of course, almost no high-profile politician recognizes when it's time to hang 'em up... Karen Bass, who is basically out of consideration because she has an arguably better, more powerful job, is 70 years old herself. She's good despite her age, but drat, these Boomers will not loosen their grip. (Like Trump, she replaced a much younger executive - Garcetti is only 52. Obama is technically a boomer, but Trump was on the opposite end of the generation.) Schiff, also a tail-end boomer, is the youngest of the big contenders at 60. I wasn't sure why people don't like him - too much focus on the orange man rather than policy? Well I gave him a closer look, and I guess there's a few things. Here what I see at a glance: - Voted for Iraq War. (That's bad.) Expressed regret in 2015, for whatever it's worth. - In 2014, pushed for repeal of the AUMF for the War on Terror. (That's good!) - Supports Saudi Arabia's invasion of Yemen in 2015, from an anti-Iran perspective. (That's bad.) He did vote in 2019 for the resolution that sought to end support for KSA, which Trump vetoed. (It's funny that he would express regret for one evil Middle Eastern war at the exact same time he was approving of another, and that he would change his mind, to absolutely no effect, once again.) - Is a proponent of surveillance reform (i.e. rolling back Bush/Obama-era 4th amendment violations) (That's good!) - Seems to be pretty pro-police, and the toppings contain Potassium Benzoate. (...that's bad.) (And there is also a track record of Pelosi supporting more moderate candidates over more left-liberal challengers, so getting her suppport might be a problem in and of itself - although I'm not sure if it's overblown or not. There might be exceptions that were lower-profile, but we all remember her unfortunate backing of Joe Kennedy III, So, a lot of stuff to not like in there. I'm sure on most votes he would be fine but he wouldn't be moving the culture of the Dem Senate caucus in the right direction. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Jun 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 14:51
|
|
|
Twincityhacker posted:
The establishment ghouls want schiff, with rumors that pelosi is trying to keep Feinstein in office until her term is up because it’ll be easier for him to win an election. Best case from a youth/politics perspective would be Katie porter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 14:54
|
|
|
Gatts posted:CNN having a townhall with Nikki Haley. CNN so desperate to suck up to the Chuds and self sabotage. Wonder how that's going. https://twitter.com/newrepublic/status/1661884887257735168 hmm  https://twitter.com/Mediaite/status/1663682775210422278 Oh no. People tuned into cable news during the Trump era because they were liberals who were outraged and wanted to feed that outrage, but now, for whatever reason, Trump doesn't have that ratings magic anymore. Rather the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 14:57
|
|
|
No one likes a reboot. We've seen the Trump story, his rise and fall. "And rise again, but older and more openly racist" isn't a ratings winner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 15:05
|
|
|
zoux posted:People tuned into cable news during the Trump era because they were liberals who were outraged and wanted to feed that outrage, but now, for whatever reason, Trump doesn't have that ratings magic anymore. Rather the opposite. I imagine people got their fill of the 4 years' hate and would rather pretend he doesn't exist anymore, so when someone commits the sin of making them remember that Trump is very much still alive, running for President, and not locked up, they get mad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 15:08
|
|
|
That atlantic article is paywalled, can anyone post it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 15:10
|
|
|
e: Whoops, wrong article
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 15:13
|
|
|
As long as CNN's chief dipshits keep chasing the Fox-Lite wannabe angle of viewership they're gonna just keep sinking. They're ratings chasing idiots that think bringing the absolute best solution to the problem twenty years ago to where they are today is the smart move to deal with cable TV dying as a medium. They make a lot of mouth noises about trying to both-sides and truth-is-in-the-middle-journalism their way through it but even that is bullshit in two major ways. One, they're bald faced lying. All they're having is constant Republican-simp poo poo on their high profile attempts like Trump's town hall and that crap outlined a few posts above. Proof is in the pudding on that stuff and that's not Fair And Balanced™©®, that's pandering while thinking the winning move is to hold on to the sanity of yester-year. There's no market left for that. Even Fox is having issues with that. The crazies want purestrain crazy right from the source, nothing watered down anymore. There's no water left in that well to tap in to, everyone that's left is moving on to the un-cut stuff. Two, the rest of the world is pretty god drat sick and tired of both-sides-ism. We're not a unified country where that poo poo sells anymore. Nobody wants to hear about how solidly in the middle the truth is and what we need to listen to from both sides to find a solution. Proto-fascists are shouting eliminationist rhetoric from the rooftops, a lot of people don't like the idea of being eliminated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 15:28
|
|
|
Like, at best if you wanted to go for the 'centrist' crowd, you'd need to actually recognise who and where they are, and maybe basically invert the Fox News formula, bring on some of those disgraced and outcast or just made up 'reasonable Republicans' as token conservative punching bags like Fox has token supposed liberals? I dunno, seems the only idea crazy enough to work. But that'd require the people in charge to be able to recognise political realities. The whole 'both sides are mean and scary and yelling at me' thing is literally the ruling class ideology and perspective, and doesn't appeal much to anyone outside those but the really credulous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 15:37
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Like, at best if you wanted to go for the 'centrist' crowd, you'd need to actually recognise who and where they are, and maybe basically invert the Fox News formula, bring on some of those disgraced and outcast or just made up 'reasonable Republicans' as token conservative punching bags like Fox has token supposed liberals? I dunno, seems the only idea crazy enough to work. But that'd require the people in charge to be able to recognise political realities. I might be wrong about centrist viewing habits - they are also likely to be older, and older people are more likely to watch cable news. It would be interesting to have some ratings data but I don't have time to dig into that right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 15:47
|
|
|
For whatever reason, LoC people do not like pandering media platforms in the same way that RoC people do. Whether that's brain reasons or socio-economic reasons or whatever, there is a vibrant, profitable right-wing news environment that tells its viewership the lies they want to hear and every attempt to recreate that for a left of center audience has failed. The best they've ever done is MSNBC.Mellow Seas posted:I think a big part of the problem, for someone who wants to run a centrist news outlet, is that the more centrist people are, the more pro-status quo they are, and the less likely they are to consume politics as entertainment. I think most people who have moderate political views would rather watch HGTV or ESPN than cable news. There's also a lot less centrists/apoliticals than there used to be. The vast majority of non-Fox cable news watchers are "centrists", especially by our standards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 15:49
|
|
|
zoux posted:The vast majority of non-Fox cable news watchers are "centrists", especially by our standards. Wallace basically left the Republicans because she was Palin's lead handler in '08, and the governor's incompetence, and her popularity, completely shattered her faith in the party. The cable news format gives her a lot of leeway to not really talk about policy, so it's hard to gauge how conservative she still is or isn't. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Jun 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 15:57
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:It really doesn't seem like there's much appetite for news without editorialization, though. MSNBC is almost completely centrist but it's also pretty partisan. You have this backwards- editorialization is mandatory because there is not enough nationally relevant news to keep the 24-hour cycle packed with pure reporting unless there is a major crisis unfolding. It doesn't matter how much of the audience wants opinions with their facts
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 16:00
|
|
|
haveblue posted:You have this backwards- editorialization is mandatory because there is not enough nationally relevant news to keep the 24-hour cycle packed with pure reporting unless there is a major crisis unfolding. It doesn't matter how much of the audience wants opinions with their facts Maybe they should show reruns of "Real Housewives" and "Vanderpump Rules" between news segments. e: Also there is definitely enough news to fill a 24 hour news cycle - there's 8 times as many nation states in the world as there are hours in the day. Just think of all the important stories and trends that are basically never covered at all, and those are just the one's we're aware of. But to the people who run the cable networks if it doesn't get eyeballs, it's not news.  Whoever discovered that rage and despair are the top driver of media engagement is the Thomas Midgely of our time. Zuckerberg, I guess. (It's really something that a nearly flawless movie about what pieces of poo poo he and his site are came out so quickly after Facebook blew up, only three years after it expanded past colleges. And then he got five billion or whatever more users anyway...) Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Jun 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 16:02
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:As long as CNN's chief dipshits keep chasing the Fox-Lite wannabe angle of viewership they're gonna just keep sinking. They're ratings chasing idiots that think bringing the absolute best solution to the problem twenty years ago to where they are today is the smart move to deal with cable TV dying as a medium. They make a lot of mouth noises about trying to both-sides and truth-is-in-the-middle-journalism their way through it but even that is bullshit in two major ways. This is what I keep trying to tell this one guy I know who insists we're still living in a both sides world where there's extremism on "both sides" of the political spectrum. Like it's not even remotely comparable honestly and anyone who thinks it is just isn't paying real attention at all or is being disingenuous frankly. There's maybe at best 1 instance of leftism taking things way too far (and it's usually some journalist or something and not somebody in an actual position of law making power or influence) for every 50 or so of far right "own the libs" rhetoric and mentality having some negative impact on Western society. Most of their insufferable constant ranting and raving over "wokeness out of control" lately is just them flat out making up theoretical scenarios they're paranoid as poo poo about anyway. Right wing extremist rhetoric is frankly already making Canada's election cycle lead up stupid up here as well. Like I thought Erin O'Toole and Andrew Scheer were pretty bad, but Pierre Poilievre is utterly insufferable on a level I've never experienced from a politician in my life time. "Wokeness" is literally all he talks about in his political rhetoric and it makes him look like the definition of an unserious politician who is unfit to govern and has nothing to actually contribute to solving real problems like inflation, climate change etc. To my knowledge he has yet to say a word about what he'd do about these issues, but in typical right wing victimhood narrative he blames Trudeau for it all the same, which I guess is enough for right wingers to see prime leadership material. The person that talks the most poo poo and has zero personal accountability, but is willing to point the finger in every other direction constantly, remains the ideal leader to modern conservatives. Where are the dozens of socialist/leftists political aspirants all over the world that deal in equivalent poo poo talking white male victimhood rhetoric that would make this a "both sides" issue exactly? Like we didn't have politicians like Pierre Poilievre 15 years ago, let alone Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis and we still don't have them in parties like the NDP thankfully.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 16:13
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Like, at best if you wanted to go for the 'centrist' crowd, you'd need to actually recognise who and where they are, and maybe basically invert the Fox News formula, bring on some of those disgraced and outcast or just made up 'reasonable Republicans' as token conservative punching bags like Fox has token supposed liberals? You just described MSNBC, particularly the part about "reasonable Republicans," although CNN has a lot of them too on their panels. (I'm assuming you mean never-Trumpers who are Republicans.) And the centrist crowd is their targeted audience.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 16:20
|
|
|
zoux posted:For whatever reason, LoC people do not like pandering media platforms in the same way that RoC people do. Whether that's brain reasons or socio-economic reasons or whatever, there is a vibrant, profitable right-wing news environment that tells its viewership the lies they want to hear and every attempt to recreate that for a left of center audience has failed. The best they've ever done is MSNBC. There’s nothing about being Left that immunizes against pandering. The difference is that much of the media in question is online only and fragmented, having largely skipped the cable era due to generational effects.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:55 |
|
|
Kale posted:Where are the dozens of socialist/leftists political aspirants all over the world that deal in equivalent poo poo talking white male victimhood rhetoric that would make this a "both sides" issue exactly? Like we didn't have politicians like Pierre Poilievre 15 years ago, let alone Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis and we still don't have them in parties like the NDP thankfully. Heh, the 'bernie bro' or 'brocialist' of myth. Despite the howling of centrist liberals, the general brand of white male victimhood rhetoric isn't really compatible with anything left of centre, either you end up having to acknowledge intersectional problems or get called out for it and run crying to the right pretty much instantly to maybe become a 'mean sjws drove me out of the left' grifter. But they have to exist, otherwise centrists are just doing exactly the same thing as the right of flailing at made-up things to justify their reactionary hysteria. Willa Rogers posted:You just described MSNBC, particularly the part about "reasonable Republicans," although CNN has a lot of them too on their panels. (I'm assuming you mean never-Trumpers who are Republicans.) I was wondering about that, figures I was just describing something that already exists and probably isn't leaving the niche open any time soon. I'm reminded of people complaining about being 'politically homeless'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 16:32
|
|