|
steinrokkan posted:You also can't expect to win on demographic change, if Latinos are morphing into whites lite, as shown this year. They think these distinctions are recognized and respected by the authorities. They will realize in 4-8 years under Trump that they are wrong.
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 13:15 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:No filibuster means they 100% own everything that passes, or fails to pass, in Congress. With a filibuster they can still have a Dem opposition scapegoat/savior for truly insane poo poo Trump wants and they don't.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 00:34
|
|
SCOTUS pick that the GOP really, really, doesn't want that they also know the Dems will line up to oppose.
|
Kilroy posted:Win the House and Senate in 2018, start the Democratic primary for 2020 a few months after they take office. And good luck getting Democrats to turn out in a mid-term when they couldn't be loving bothered showing up to keep loving Donald Trump from becoming president.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah if we keep running midterms the way we did in 2010 and 2014, we're hosed. So don't do that. I think the real dangers with Trump are not the crazy and outrageous things we all fear, but the utter mundane things that are none-the-less expansive in scope and terrible in consequences but are not so easy to rally the troops against. Things like standing by while his FCC lets network neutrality die, and making extremely conservative judicial appointments, and not doing anything about climate change, and doing nothing to stop the police from murdering people while AG Guiliani blames the victims. I really have strong doubts in the Democrats to turn out in midterms without "sexy" political disasters driving them en masse.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
darth_pizza posted:And Ruth Bader-Ginsberg says she is too. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Internet Kraken posted:Trump isn't going to enact any legislature that keeps him from making more money.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:Trump seems like a Keynesian which means he is right about exactly one thing that Republicans (and a lot of democrats) are dead wrong about.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Everyone's mistake has been thinking that the rural white voter wants things to improve for themselves, when what they really want is for everyone to suffer. They're just a vindictive and cruel lot. It doesn't even matter that they themselves will suffer, as long as the people they dislike (minorities, city folk, elites, etc.) suffer more. They're like accelerationists, but without the hope that things will magically get better later.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
For foreign diplomats, Trump hotel is place to bequote:She said much of the discussion among Washington-based diplomats is over “how are we going to build ties with the new administration.”  Trump is already being read like a book by foreign governments. We're going to get massively hosed as a country on any big league bigly "deals" Trump makes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2016 12:09
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:It looks like the juicy poo poo re: the Trump presidency dumpster fire is gonna be slooooow going. I wish there was more insane poo poo going on. I want to see it collapse like a mother.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Some more good news from Slate, as always: quote:The president-elect introduced Ruffin to his current wife, former Miss Universe contestant Oleksandra Nikolayenko. Ruffin, then 72, married Nikolayenko, then 26, at a 2008 ceremony where Trump served as best man.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 10:41
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:It's been said a million times, but Perez is also a fine, progressive candidate. This seems to simply be a dispute about whether to go with a relative rookie who can devote themselves full-time to the job or a more experienced campaigner who might have to split their energies.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
the black husserl posted:I already posted in the other trumpy thread, but who cares this should be posted in every thread on the forums. Trump just loving killed climate research with a massive cut to NASA. I can't overstate how big of a deal this is. It's unbelievably hostile to the scientific community. Study of the climate will be forever set back.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:I mean let's be honest is the margin small enough so that this recount even makes a lock of difference in any oft hose three? Clinton getting Wisconsin and Michigan would put it at 258-280 for Trump, meaning they'd need to snag 12 faithless electors. That number of faithless electors in the modern era is unprecedented, but so are a lot of other things this election. I think faithless electors are more likely this election than normal due to Hillary's overwhelming popular vote win, and the amount of crazy that Trump promises to bring. Preventing someone like Trump from becoming President was the initial intent of the electoral college in the first place, after all. But it's still a tiny chance to get both Wisconsin and Michigan, and a tiny chance on top of that to get 12 faithless electors. But the chance is not zero. Well worth $7 million to pursue, especially if it's Jill Stein spending it. I think we learned in 2000 that no goodwill or favor is gained by the Democrats being the "adults" and accepting defeat gracefully.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 10:46
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:This is probably a really dumb question but given the gap between poll data and election results, have all poll nerds and statisticians been lined up and shot? Or rather, has a postmortem happened on how virtually every independent model was so wrong? I get that it's an extremely dodgy science but from said science angle has any coherent reason of "how we missed this" arisen? I've heard the shame effect of people who were voting trump but didn't want to say so, and that "hillary's firewall" states weren't scrutinized as much in the final weeks, and that implicit biases wormed their way in somehow perhaps due to this being such an unconventional election. I just don't know of that how much of it is people just floating reasons and how much has turned up as "yeah, this is where we went wrong with our polling model". It turns out that Nate Silver was right. I think the about 80% chance for Hillary to win was as good of a prediction as could have been generated, and Trump just happened to get lucky in his roll of the dice.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
Xae posted:It is easy to dismiss Trump voters are idiots, but stupid to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Phone posted:That's why I'm voting Cloud Strife of the AVALANCHE Party come 2020. We need a candidate with strong, blond hair. Cloud Strife: couldn't save Aeris, can't save Midgar." ~ Paid for by the Re-elect President Shinra Committee
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:I think my favorite thing from conservatives in the post-election time is when you confront them with how much voter suppression there was of poor and minorities they just say that you are the real racist/classist because you underestimate what those people could do to get around the suppression.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Condiv posted:remember when people were saying "hillary is terrible, i'm going to vote third party!" and all the hillfolk were like "well we don't need you anyway, we have moderate republicans to replace you!"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
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. 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
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I don't disagree with anything of this, but it goes both ways. I live in CT, which is an insanely populous state given its small geographic size (something like 4th or 5th by density), but our political interests are basically aligned with the (also very dense) states around us. Should we also consolidate New England?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:The constitution is all that's standing between you and Trumpageddon.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:And there's no practical way you could sell this without it looking like a blatant attempt to reduce Republican representation, which obviously isn't going to fly so long as Republicans still have any power at all. Rhode Island is the 43rd smallest state by population and geographically tiny, so how do you justify leaving it with two Senate seats while consolidating a state like Nebraska, which has twice its population? I'll also mention that the ratio of population between most populous state to least populous state when the U.S. was formed was about 17. Today, it is about 70. That's a quadrupling of Senate power for the smallest state. I don't think the framers intended for states to have such dramatic differences in population.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Acid Haze posted:I don't really understand all the hubbub about the electoral college. I mean, I do, but I don't think discussion about it now is very productive. We've all known how stupid it is for many years, but neither party wants to get rid of it because they both think they know the best way to use it to their advantage. The electoral college bit the Democrats in the rear end in 2000, but during Obama's 8 years the party didn't push any kind of electoral reform and, what do you know, it bit them in the rear end again in 2016. quote:So your hopes of electoral reform lie future senators and congressmen who campaign on electoral reform, and a future president who might make it a priority (most likely a democrat). So the fight then is in the midterms, and trying to elect progressive congressman and senators who will in the future be able to vote for electoral reform if it comes around. And I would expect that if the Dems started pushing electoral reform, Republicans would fight it tooth and nail and what the SCOTUS looks like at that time will have a huge impact. Basically, if you really want to get rid of the electoral college, we need to vote Democrats into power in 38 states and then call a constitutional convention. And if we could do that, we'd have NPVIC already, so we probably wouldn't even bother at that point.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 13:15 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It's easier to take more states and sign on to the 270 compact while writing things to be as bullshit convoluted as possible for backing out of it. Like, not being allowed to leave unless most signatories agree to leave at the same time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 02:05
|
|