|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: The Trump Presidency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Modulous Member  Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I know you're trying to be brief in summarizing what I said, but "But Trump is awful" doesn't really capture the magnitude of the malevolence and peril. We're 1400 posts in and we haven't begun to cover it - so yeah, brevity was a saving grace I feel 
"The result is counter to short term interests," or words to that effect, is something Stile said, not me. My response was to strongly question his assumption that the effects of a Trump presidency wouldn't be long-lasting and enduring, mentioning climate change, the environment and using the New Deal as an example of something that has had an enduring effect (see my Message 1321). Fair enough - but i'd say that a Republican legislature probably has a bigger negative effect on these things. The executive isn't negligible - but I think 4 years of not changing all that much and 4 years of changing in the wrong direction isn't as big a difference as you might think, in my opinion. My long term view is 50-100 years, not 10-20 if that helps understand my perspective.
Uh, okay, but somehow it just didn't come across as taking the Trump threat seriously. Well I treat all moves towards the right seriously. Which is why I wouldn't have voted for either of the main candidates.
The sarcastic "Well if you want to be that way about it" part was saying that you were nitpicking about a side point that was just a lead in line to the rest of a longer paragraph that I thought was making an important point. The point I was making was to counter the point that
quote: By saying she didn't.
See the 2nd paragraph of my Message 1359. Which I also responded to in Message 1360.
The Party can do what it likes - and this is certainly a pragmatic choice for the careers of those involved. But that lays no obligation on the voters who are not obliged to vote for a Democrat President just because the Democrats nominated a person. You're stating the obvious Glad to hear it.
The equally obvious point is that once the parties have nominated their candidates, voting for anyone else can have unintended consequences. As can voting for one of the two main parties. Since I am not going to vote *for* either of the two parties, having already explained I will only vote for someone I want to be President (in that hypothetical world where I'm in the electorate) my only other choice is to not vote at all. The effect is the same for Clinton's chances - but at least voting for a more left wing candidate will inform people why Clinton didn't get my vote... the Party moved towards the right and maybe the strategy there was to keep those in the middle and pick up some voters from the right. But it looks like Clinton lost more votes to the right than she gained AND lost votes on the left. So that strategy - if consciously executed, kind of blew up.
To the extent that sending messages to the Democrats by voting for other candidates contributed to Trump's election, those people got a result opposite to the one they intended, meaning that the candidate they thought a shoe-in lost, the candidate they thought most horrible won, and the significance of any message was completely lost in the resulting havoc. I didn't think Clinton was a shoe-in. The idea of 3 or 4 Democratic Presidencies in a row is itself unlikely - she was disliked by both by the right and many on the left etc. I thought she'd still manage to win, but I didn't expect it to be by a safe margin. Nevertheless you keep missing the point - my intention (hypothetical world) was to not give my vote to Clinton, and over time, push the voting landscape leftwards. It was to give voice to how I think the country should be governed. I may be ignored, but I'll say it anyway. The only people responsible for Trump's victory are those that voted for him. If the Democrats want to overcome those votes they need to pick a candidate that will accrue enough {in the right places} to overcome this. My suggestion is to not ignore your potential supporters on the left wing.
But the message to the Republican party is far more dire and of far greater consequence, so why are we talking about sending a message to the Democrats? I wouldn't have voted for the Republicans either - but I expect that my vote's influence has less power to send that message. This message should have been what the centre-right people delivered by shifting their votes to Clinton. That they didn't is not so much a function of the Republican nominee as it is the Democrat nominee. Either way, these votes are likely as or more impactful than the dropped votes on the left. So again, the Republican voters remain the most blameworthy for Trump's victory.
The Democrats ran a candidate who lost the electoral college by a few tens of thousands of votes that could easily have swung the other way. Big whoop. That's not much of a message. Then the Democrats can safely ignore it, business as usual. This won't earn my vote but if they don't care that's their concern. I voiced my perspective in any case.
By way of contrast, the Republicans have put a madman in charge of the country. Sending a message to the Republicans to not run Trump in 2020 seems a far, far, far more important message than sending ambiguous messages to the Democrats that Clinton lost and that means they should choose better nominees. Well here's hoping the Republicans aren't gripped by the insane 'it's not simply about voting for him, its about voting against the Democrats' nominee that you are reverse-arguing for here.
I think you should read your own link. It makes clear that polls of that nature at that time (a year ago May in mid-primary season) are not worth much. Sanders is a democratic socialist. I not only addressed one of the main points to that effect but you replied to it. Also Sanders was a social democrat, not a democratic socialist.
quote: Social democracy - Wikipedia
quote: Democratic socialism - Wikipedia
Well, I'm not a Democrat, so my thinking would have been slightly different, something like, "He's not an insane, malevolent force, so like him or not, vote for him." But as you point out later, there are many people out there who only lean Democratic or lean Republican, and there are also a fair number of true independents, so Sanders' democratic socialist background would have been a killer in the general election. Well that's your opinion, and maybe it would have. But if more Democrat voters would prefer Trump to Sanders than Democrats who declined to vote for Clinton - I hope you have more disdain for the former at least.
Then who? You can cross Sanders off your list for the obvious reason, so who else? I don't think the reason is obvious, and I'm happy to keep him on the list thank you. As I have already said - I'd be surprised if Clinton was the best option, but if she really was then the Democrat party is in big trouble.
Well, it's only an opinion about nomenclature, so I don't know that it matters how widely shared it is, but I look at it this way. Euphemistically characterizing a choice between two candidates you don't like as "choosing the lesser of two evils" is fine, because everyone understands what you mean and knows you don't mean the candidates are actually evil. But you can't use that phrase when one of the candidates is Trump, because Trump is truly evil in the actual sense of the word. A choice between Clinton and Trump cannot be termed "choosing the lesser of two evils" because it is no longer euphemistic. The euphemistic quality is lost because Trump *is* actually evil and Clinton is not. No, I meant that it is your opinion that Clinton is not evil or an evil or whatever.
Come up with some specific names and transform your hypothetical into something that can actually be discussed. A) Why?B) How? Without votes, without the campaign, without the opposition what can we say about anyone? As I said - let's see who the next nominee is. Then tell me that this individual could not possibly have been a superior option to Clinton in 2016. It might be the case, but I was countering your position certainty by showing a reason to doubt. I don't need specifics to do this. Again, if the Democrats can't field someone with a better chance than Clinton (someone who can get say, a 5% margin rather than a 2% margin of the popular vote) the Democrats, and by extension America, is screwed.
Then the lesson you're talking about has to be directed not at the Democratic party but at the people who vote in primaries.
It's both, but more the former. And that's because the Democratic party is the one that actually chooses the system its going to use to pick the nominee - and if that system is an inferior one then its their fault. Sure, the people in the Primaries could vote smarter - but their information is restricted because the selection method provides limited information so their blame is less.
What you're actually saying is (sic), "I'm ignoring Trump and just considering Clinton as if she ran in a vacuum." Instead of phrasing what I said as a question let me just state it as rebuttal: The number of people who withheld their vote from Clinton while believing their action had true potential for resulting in a Trump election must be very small. The more substantive factor is that the polls showing Clinton with a substantial lead must have convinced many it was safe to vote that way. I am saying I vote *for* candidates, not *against* candidates. If you can find someone who voted another way just because they thought it was safe, and not because of their political opinions then argue these kinds of points with them. I know there were plenty who refused to give their vote to Clinton not because they thought it safe, but because they did not want to give their vote to Clinton. I don't have any numbers to back up which group is larger, but you seem certain - can you provide any research?
Nor is it OK that Clinton was the only viable alternative. Why not? I thought I'd expressed that I am not happy with 'right wing' vs 'even more right wing' as options.
In every Presidential election year each party runs a number of candidates through the primary system and arrives at a single candidate. Clinton won the Democratic nomination Indeed. And that system doesn't necessarily produce the person most likely to win the Presidency, as I said. And I'm not OK with that. If we are stuck with a two party system, I'd prefer if the major party closest to my views could more accurately pick the most likely to win nominee.
To say that it is not okay that Clinton was the only viable alternative to Trump is to ignore reality. There's a difference between ignoring reality and being dissatisfied with it.
There are only two major parties in the United States, and in almost every election there have been only two viable alternatives, and obviously each party's nominee had substantial numbers of people who would have preferred a different nominee. A) I am not OK with a two party systemB) This isn't about preferring a different nominee. It's about not wanting to contribute to any mandate to the nominee put forward. The only way for there to have been additional viable alternatives is with multiple parties, but that's not a realistic possibility in the United States. We don't have a parliamentary system of governing, which is more encouraging of multiple parties. It's not the only way. We still end up with the Executive being one of two parties. Alternate style voting is a better method for getting multiple parties or running more than one candidate per party - especially when we're talking about a single winner like a Presidential election.
Well now you're sounding like one of those sour grapes voters who says, in effect, "My party didn't nominate a candidate I like, so I'll do something (or nothing) with my vote that and risk contributing to the election of a President who is unqualified in almost every imaginable way and who represents a danger to the country and the world and who wouldn't get my vote were you to hold hot coals to my feet." They wouldn't be 'my party'. I wouldn't be a Democrat any more than you are one. To me, my vote is one of my tools to express my political opinion. Sensible parties analyze votes after an election to see where they dropped votes. Oh, the Green Party is getting lots of votes, perhaps we should make Green issues more important. OH UKIP are getting lots of votes, we should make Europe a campaign issue. That way they can take votes away from those parties by better representing the changing views of the country. I'll vote for a major party candidate if the Party chooses to move towards my perspective. I hope this encourages them to stay there or even continue moving my way. This would need others who agree with me, of course, but that's democracy..
...so comparing Clinton to Trump is not important to me. Really? I don't understand you. You're sounding blas about Trump again, as if four years of Trump is no big deal.Drawing precisely such comparisons between candidates so as to realize the ever-present dangers Trump represents is extremely important. It's critical to informed decision making. I understand you are big proponent of engaging in tactical voting. I'm sorry that you don't understand that I'm not and why. I'm not sure if I can find a way to explain it any other way.
But that's not blaming the electoral college system, and that's definitely not what I'm doing. There *are* places to properly place blame. Part of it is the way popular votes mapped onto electoral college votes, which is just an explanation that how things break down at a detailed level in the electoral college is difficult to predict. Part of it is the polls that showed Clinton with a substantial lead. Part of it is the Comey reopening of the email server investigation just before the election. I see the electoral college as a well known reality that we have to deal with, not an object of blame. Using the vagaries of the electoral college as one reason as to why Clinton is not President is what I meant by blame. You did after all say:
quote: If you don't like 'blame' substitute 'attributed'.
Yes, I understood that, but it's not going to happen I wasn't talking about what will happen, I was suggesting what should happen to avoid the scenario of a candidate with a better chance in the actual election not being selected as nominee. Given the dire consequences of this happening when a Trump like candidate runs, I would have thought you'd be inclined to at least agree on this.
But most likely, nothing will change. Quite right. So you can expect the same things will keep happening. No point talking about how to move the glacier towards a better place, right? The glacier will just magically move towards a better solution without anyone arguing, persuading and uniting people to move it that way.
Well, I'm glad you're "not interested particularly in a 'Why was Clinton problematic' debate." And of course Trump is so much further to the right than any Democratic candidate, real or imagined, that this point is moot. No, it's not moot. It's exactly on target. If right wing policies are becoming popular I'm not going to contribute to that by voting for right wing person just because the alternative is a very right wing person.
Democratic dreams of taking over the Senate in 2018 are just that - dreams. Far more Democrats than Republicans are up for reelection in the Senate in 2018. Democrats taking over the House is a possibility, but only that, a possibility. I am not arguing you aren't screwed. I'm just suggesting your next political focus should be the legislature.
That's like saying only the cake matters, not the ingredients and process that went into making it. But the nationwide popular vote does not convert into electoral college votes in any way whatsoever.
Sure you are. You had just said, "Only former [the final electoral college tally] actually matters." That could be the dictionary example of the definition of "focussed exclusively on one thing." As far as who is President, that's true. But I'm not only focussed on which votes ultimately matter. The local popular votes contribute to the electoral votes. I have also discussed how better to distribute the votes that matter to reduce the 'bumpiness' the electoral college currently results in, I have also discussed better primary nominations... The popular vote however, is not important. There is a correlation for obvious reasons, but the Mandate for President is given by the States, not the People. 25% of the People's votes can result in 50.x% of the State's votes.
I think never mentioning it pretty much constitutes ignoring it. Probably. But then I *have* been talking about how picking a candidate who wouldn't drop individual voters votes is important for the Democratic Party so I'm certainly mentioning this particular point.
Oh, okay, I see. When you said, "They are also not based on popular votes across the nation," you didn't mean "popular votes within each of the states of the nation," you meant "the nationwide popular vote". Right - as we've been talking about. The 3 million popular votes Trump trailed by weren't in one State after all.
Not what I meant. The analogy was with things like the Maginot Line, very appropriately "characterized as a mistake," a strategy based on the assumption that future wars would be like WWI. In other words, the Democrats are not going to win 2020 by fighting 2016 all over again. Yes, I was subverting your analogy to use it to reinforce my point. That's really the only option open as a response to an analogy that isn't dismissive in some way. I'm not suggesting they fight a campaign that would win 2016. I'm suggesting they look at the general problems that lead to that loss and try to learn lessons from them. If those problems are that people on the left of the democrat leaners declined to vote Democrat this time, they should try to ensure they don't alienate them with their candidate choice. If it is that fielding a candidate disliked by the centre right is no way to counter a far right candidate, then they should give up the fight for the centre right and focus elsewhere. If it was poor management of swing states, then they should rethink their swing state strategies. More personal level campaigning? Focus on the working class more and the middle class less? Whatever it is.
Huh? How does that make any sense? The whole idea of selling snake oil is to make very appealing but false claims. How could any honest person find something to suggest that is more effective than the claims made for snake oil? It's a genuine conundrum that shouldn't have to be explained. People like to hear what the snake oil salesman tells them. It's very appealing. But the claims made for snake oil are false. How do you convince the crowd that they're false? You don't need to convince all of them, of course. You're only recourse is to expose the oil as ineffective and show them a more persuasive argument as to why actual medicine will be better.
Let me use a different and more direct example. How would you convince the people of Trump's base that most of what he says is lies? You don't bother. Targeting a candidates base is usually a futile effort.
That is, don't go status quo. Not getting this one. Clinton was seen as the 'business as usual' candidate during an election where people were angry with business as usual. Might work for an incumbent, but it's a hurdle for someone trying to get their party in for a third term. It's safe, but rarely actually works.
Isn't that more a lesson for the Republicans? The party that got themselves co-opted by "the worst candidate you've ever seen." I doubt the Republicans are going to change their party to appease Sanders supporters. That message needs to be sent by the Republican voters - like those that voted Obama who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton.
That's not a problem I'm putting forward or trying to solve. That's just factual backdrop that the candidate who won the popular vote lost the electoral college. Seems pointless to keep bringing it up in a discussion about factors that contributed to Clinton's loss then. Also strange that you would characterise it as 'the problem' and the cause of Clinton's loss earlier. But OK, moving on...
In that case give me some real examples of how you'd change the primary process that would fix the problem of producing inadequate candidates *and* have a prayer of being adopted. Why? I'm arguing for nudging things in my political direction over the course of my lifetime - not arguing that significant changes to that effect are likely to occur in the next 3 years.
Well, more accurately, you're suggesting that improvements be made. You're not actually suggesting any improvements that have a chance of implementation. Your obsession with what has a chance is peculiar. It's absolutely not a good reason to not argue in favour of them. It's not even a good reason to not talk about them. Not discussing them only reinforces the likelihood of them never being adopted rather than eventually. After all, the idea that black people would get the vote didn't have a chance of implementation once. It took arguing, and a little bloodshed to get there. And the consequences of the turmoil had a deleterious effect on the country for years, decades after the changes were implemented. But long term, it was for the better. I've consistently voted for the party that is in favour of gay marriage. Eventually - decades after I started - that party and that issue got enough power that the right wing leader of the UK put it in front of parliament - and while his party voted it down, my elected party universally voted it up and the second biggest party mostly voted it up and it passed. In the meantime, the highly improbable Brexit happened, and the unlikely to pass but did surprisingly well AV referendum happened. Not the perfect alternate voting system, but we finally showed a 1/3 of the country is in favour of it. Progress towards my political ends, with some political losses thrown in too. Such is democracy. Also - you are arguing this was not the election for a protest vote. The chances of you ridding the US elections of protest votes that impact results is also next to nil. So let's not discount discussion on the grounds of short term probability of implementation.
That's just absurd. In every Presidential election one of the parties loses. There was nothing special in this election or its candidates that screams out "fix the voting system." Then don't. Personally - I think getting the candidate with the best possible chance of winning an election should be a goal of a party, and I hope the Democrats find ways to do better at it than the Republican Party. But if things are fine the way they are according to you, then we're good. Clinton lost, she was the best candidate they could realistically find but statistical noise scuppered her victory. End of story.
I'm drawing a blank. Where did you give an "alternative method," one that has a prayer of being adopted? I have not given any probabilities of adoption. As with all political actors, I am arguing in favour of my preferred outcomes. If enough people join me, it will become an issue. If enough people get behind the issue, it will motivate change.
We'll never know if Clinton lost for that reason. That kind of data doesn't exist. What we know is that many Democrats and people who leaned Democrat were unhappy with Clinton as a candidate. My point is that to the extent these people cast or withheld their vote in ways that contributed to Trump's election, they got a result far worse than they ever imagined. Right - and my point was about how one might go about minimising the number of people unhappy with a candidate, minimising the number of vote withholders by using a method of selection that can provide a measure of this information. Thus avoiding any situation, this one included if it happens to be such, where withholders had an impact on who wins the election. I think this has a better chance of working, once adopted it will continue to do the job, and given how procedures become 'sticky' over time, can become a long term solution to this particular problem. The alternative, pointing out that withholders are a problem, but offering no solution as it is unrealistic, gets you nowhere faster than mine.
I hope you're not taking those personally. No - I raised the issue to highlight them in an attempt to inhibit the regrettable downslide into this becoming personal - which sometimes occurs in forum debates. I assume you are susceptible to a gentle reminder of the boundaries and the ease in which starting to gnaw at them can result in in-kind retorts and then debate hell.
I hope you're not taking those personally. I was trying to inject sarcasm as a way of emphasizing how far outside the realm of the rational a particular argument seemed to me. Keep in mind that you *are* the one making detailed comments about an election in a foreign country. Says the person from the nation that actually elected Trump. See? That could be friendly joshing but it can escalate right? A less personal rejoinder would be to say I am reasonable confident I'm as informed or moreso than many of your countrymen whose vote actually counts about the US political system. I was a (metaphorical) coin toss away from becoming a citizen myself like 2/3 of my brothers and 3/3 of my father.
This is just more nonsense. You already mentioned the possibility of alternative approaches to voting, I already said I was familiar with them, I don't understand why you're raising this issue again. Well the argument went thusly:
I'm not getting involved in a strange argument about being 'good enough' - I'm pointing out that if you want to win elections, picking the person who wins the most votes in Democratic primaries as it is currently structured is sub-optimal.
Says the person from the UK while being remarkably unspecific. It's not Clinton's fault for losing per se - ultimately it's the voting system of the Democratic Party's fault for picking Clinton. This is not a rewording of Stile's argument.I would be surprised if the Democrats had no potential candidate that could not defeat Trump in a categorical manner You have now conceded you can't be certain whether there were alternative candidates that would have done better. And that was rather my point. I added to this further information about how a primary winner might not be the one with the best chance of winning an election. Am I not being specific? Is my specificity nonsense? Since my point to this part of the discussion is1) Clinton might not have been the best candidate who could have been nominated 2) Other ways of selecting a candidate may do better at finding such a candidate 3) If Trump stands for a second term, we'd better hope a candidate with better chances both exists and gets nominated 4) I'm not merely arguing Clinton was not 'good enough'. Here is the original point you were arguing against:
quote: Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
No, this isn't true. I don't know how much US news makes it over to the UK, but Trump is unable to get anything through the legislature and so is ruling by executive order. So far the damage is all him, no one else. Here is the legislature's actions so far: H.J.Res. 66 - removing protections for state employee's pension plans. Those protections include fiduciary responsibilities and the ability to sue for those affected by breach of these responsibilities. Those responsibilities are that the plans should be run for the benefit of the beneficiaries, risk be diversified etc etc. S. 496 - removing certain planning restrictions in the realm of transit. The responsibilities of those involved include the regulation of congestion and air quality. H.J.Res. 43 - States can now withhold funding from health centres that provide abortion services S.J. Res. 34 - overturning certain privacy regulations surrounding collecting data on users of the internet. H.J. Res. 83 - rolls back prior requirements for reporting work place injuries and reduces the statute of limitations from 5 years to 6 months for violations in this area. H.J.Res. 69 - removes restrictions on certain types of hunting. Want to shoot a bear from a helicopter? Go Bear-baiting? Well now you can in Alaska H.J.Res.42 - let's drug test people seeking unemployment benefits H.J.Res.57 - removes certain accountability measures for schools. Like academic success, student progress. That kind of thing. H.J. Res. 58 - Also - teacher preparation doesn't need to be something we worry about. H.J. Res. 44 - Reduces local input significantly, looks at less facts when deciding whether to allow logging and mining operations etc on federal lands. H.J. Res. 37 - Those employing government contractors no longer have to report labour law violations - including wage theft, discrimination and unsafe working conditions H.J.Res. 40 - guns for the severely mentally ill H.J.Res.38 - remove protections on streams from pollution from coal mining waste H.J.Res.41 - it is no longer required to disclose payments to the government for the commercial development of oil, gas or minerals. These are pretty bad, I'm sure you'd agree. Now plenty Trump's EOs have been bad too - comparing them is non-trivial. Coupled with his international diplomatic 'skill' the balance certainly seems to weigh in Trump's favour right now. To say the damage is all him, however, is certainly wrong. You mentioned two of his actions - but the legislature, as you can see, has done similar things regarding exploiting natural resources and water pollution issues.
I understand that your timescale is 50-100 years, and my examples are consistent with it, but I don't understand why your timescale is so long. 10-20 years is a generation at the upper end. Something with an impact that lasts a generation is catastrophic. Something with that impact is significant. But something lasts 100 years is more significant. If securing votes for black people for 100 years or more takes 20 years of bad things, I'd take it - wouldn't you? That's rhetorical, I know the answer.
Then I was right, you're not treating the threat that is Trump seriously enough. He is not merely someone who is more right than Clinton. He's a madman. You are wrong. I am treating him seriously. I've turned down job opportunities in the States, and I'm not visiting my family while said madman is in charge. I got enough crap from authorities when Bush was in charge, and I had less breasts then. I'm not taking any chances. And I do get the UK references, I have the option of not being there at least.
This is a purist position, and like most purist positions it breaks down in the real world. The 2016 election was just such a situation. To the extent that your not voting Clinton or at all led to the election of Trump, you caused a result contrary to your own best interests. My interests are for the next 100 years, as I said. If my vote was important to the Democratic party next time they'll have field a candidate that will get it. I aim for more good candidates on average, than bad ones. Trump clearly upsets this average, but I'll continue to fight for the political direction I think Presidents should be going in.
But it looks like Clinton lost more votes to the right than she gained AND lost votes on the left. So that strategy - if consciously executed, kind of blew up. Actually the growing consensus here is that Clinton somehow lost too many Obama voters to Trump. Not really a moment to say 'actually'. I did say she lost more votes to the right than she gained, after all. Those would be the Obama voters to the right of Obama. Many of those Obama voters she lost tend to vote Republican in the legislature, studies suggest.
I think that in 2020 the Democrats will nominate the winner of the primaries, just like they did in 2016. Of what good is your message? I think you are right.But I also think the winner of the primaries is likely the person that powers that be in the party wanted to win - the person they put their weight, finances and publicity machine behind. I doubt that a single election will be sufficient to change their mind on their strategies all that much, but as I said it's nudging the glacier. It's a long term view, not one which I expect to have any significant effect for a single election. There may come a tipping point, where after fielding many right leaning politicians they realize the slowly shifting political landscape of the electorate means that moving left will score more votes but my plans are not contingent on that tipping point necessarily being the next election. To do that, people need to vote leftwards, otherwise they won't have the evidence to suggest the landscape has moved.
Politics is very polarized in the US right now, and if Trump remains President for his full 4-year term then it is a very safe bet that politics will be even more polarized in 2020. That's certainly the trend of the last 20 years or so. I hope it breaks left.
I not only addressed one of the main points to that effect but you replied to it. Wasn't able to track it down. quote: This reflects the main gist of the counter in the article that later in the race, Sanders may have done worse than Clinton for various reasons and Clinton may do better. As it turns out those same polls had Clinton about 6 points ahead of Trump, and she ended up 2 points ahead in the popular vote. Those polls put Sanders ahead of Trump by 12 points. He'd have to drop 10 points from the polls to do as 'badly' against Trump as Clinton. Possible? Sure. But it's food for thought.
If Sanders had been the Democratic candidate then even greater numbers of Democrats and those leaning Democratic would have cast protest votes or not voted. Sanders was governor in the next state over from mine. It's not like my knowledge of how he is perceived were just formed last year when he emerged on the national stage. So far I'm hearing your opinion. Maybe it's correct. Do you have evidence for this?
Here's a headline from the Washington Post from a couple days ago about a debate about tax cuts between Sanders and former Republican candidate for President Ted Cruz: Cruz totally outclassed Sanders in last night’s debate. If Ted Cruz can beat Sanders in a debate, Trump would have crushed him. The same author also penned: Huntsman-Bachmann in 2012! - The GOP should rally early to this dream ticket Trump’s presence at the U.N. General Assembly was reassuring So far, so good. But this is just the beginning of Hurricane Harvey for President Trump. Last night, the president did himself a lot of good. But how long will it last? Democrats can’t hide their anti-business bias Comey’s testimony was a net plus for Trump Comey should have been out long ago Obama has no shame President Trump and the Republican majority show they can govern The GOP should ignore the debt consequences and pass the Trump tax cuts Trump is skillfully navigating Washington’s budget realities Ivanka Trump is a reassuring presence in an unpredictable White House I'm not sure I'm going to find a former staffer for Reagan and Bush and someone who is sometimes critical of, but overall supporting Trump an unbiased reporter on this matter.
quote: Yeah, you do that, UK-guy. Thanks American dude.
Well, it's not surprising that Sanders would be preferred by Europeans, but you're supposed to be pretending you're a US citizen voting in a US election. To do that you're going to have to either leave your European proclivities behind or be clear that you're pretending to be an American of very, very liberal politics (as measured on the American scale from liberal to conservative). I'm pretending that I was in the electorate. I almost was a US citizen like other members of my immediate family. I don't see the point in me talking about what it would be like if I had different political views. You were replying to me suggesting it would be surprising if Clinton was the candidate with the best chance of winning the Presidential election, so my opinion of her is not really important to that point.
You actually seem to know something about American politics, so why would you say this? {mentions losses of one election followed by wins in the next} quote: Was one such mention. Being slaughtered may not be surmountable, but do you think Dole was really the best candidate the Republicans could have fielded? That Pat Buchanan could definitely not have secured as many votes? That George Dubya couldn't have even done better? I'd hope that whoever runs for the Democratic ticket in 2020 is not likely to get all the experience in 4 years that suddenly makes them a good pick that they lacked in 2016. So conceivably whoever that is, may well have been a strong enough pick to do better than Clinton. If not, that doesn't look good for the Democrats - it means they may be looking a talent deficiency they will have to scramble to correct in only a few years.
So given this history, how does it make any sense to argue that "the Democratic party is in really big trouble"? Add to this history the fact that Clinton won the popular vote by a substantial margin and only lost the electoral college because of the way a mere 70,000 popular votes were cast, a mere 0.05% of the total popular vote? If a 2 point lead in the popular is the *best* the Democratic Party is capable of in 2016 (which I personally don't think it was) - they have deep problems that won't likely be resolved in 4 years. Meaning either 8 years of Trump, or at least 8 years of Republican executive is reasonably likely - which I would suggest qualifies as being screwed.
Say what? Where is this negativity about Clinton coming from? People's brains. I mean I'm just pointing out that people have different opinions of Clinton than you. Not controversial, I presume.
She's a politician much similar in character to many other politicians. Which some people might opine is 'an evil'.
Yeah, good questions, and without answers you have nothing supporting your absurd position that there were better candidates out there than Clinton. It's my opinion that there likely were, based on the flawed selection system and the fact there are plenty of intelligent, politically savvy people in the United States qualified for the role to pick from. I never couched it as an absolute. I conceded several times that maybe she was the best candidate possible, I only mentioned that she might not be and that being the case - there may be ways to more optimally find the candidate most likely to win the election.
Is just more nonsense. Politicians have their moment that they can take advantage of to achieve high office, plus the passage of four years adds experience and an opportunity to develop a following, increase influence, and refine one's positions. You're just pretending that the reality of the way politics works doesn't exist. I'm not ignoring it. I said that maybe such a person didn't exist in 2016 more than once. You're ignoring my nuance to accuse me of ignoring reality.
No, I'm pretty sure you need specifics. Otherwise you're just arguing hypothetically. I'm pretty sure I don't need specifics to argue that maybe, and hopefully there were better people who could have run than Clinton.
You're fighting the last war again. 2020 is very unlikely to play out the same way as 2016. For one thing, Trump will have had more time to consume his young (i.e., destroyed by his penchant for often being his own worst enemy). I'm not suggesting the Democrats fight the battle of 2020 as if it were 2016. I'm saying they need to optimize their selection process to try and avoid marginal losses that should have been wins. I'm looking at the next 25 battles, not just the one in front of me.
Where are you getting this nonsense about the Decmocrats being the party that chooses their system? My mistake. Who does choose the Democratic Party's system for electing Democratic candidates? Is it the Egyptian Revolution Party?
I directed you to the United States presidential primary webpage in my previous message. Did you visit that webpage and find something there that led you to believe what you just said? quote: Hrm, looks like the Democratic Party chose that. How am I mistaken? Did they not write, update, maintain and follow the Charter and Bylaws?
Yet more nonsense. Where are you getting this stuff? How could their information be restricted because of the "selection method," which except in the caucus states is open to participation by every registered voter. The candidates go to the states with upcoming primaries and actively campaign. How can the information possibly be restricted? You should probably hold off from pulling that 'nonsense' trigger and just focus on the questions if you misunderstand my position. They are missing the information regarding which nominees will fail to get as many votes in the election from those who voted for someone else in the primaries. That is, if the person that gets plurality of votes is somehow hated by everyone else resulted in some significant proportion of 'defectors' - that information is not reflected in the results. Nor is the information that the second runner might actually pick up all the same votes as the plurality winner with the bonus of not dropping votes from defectors, should that be the situation.
I know there were plenty who refused to give their vote to Clinton not because they thought it safe, but because they did not want to give their vote to Clinton. Pardon my skepticism, but you know this how? Because they said so.
quote: Hillary Clinton: Why I Won't Vote for Her | Time
quote: https://www.cnbc.com/...backers-hold-firm-as-dnc-starts.html
The number of people who withheld their vote from Clinton while believing their action had true potential for resulting in a Trump election must be very small. The more substantive factor is that the polls showing Clinton with a substantial lead must have convinced many it was safe to vote that way. I don't have any numbers to back up which group is larger, but you seem certain - can you provide any research? It isn't clear what groups you're referring to, and of what do I seem certain? The group that withheld their vote because it was 'safe' and the group that withheld their vote for political reasons. You mentioned the one, I talked about the other. I then said I don't know which is bigger but you seem certain as you said it 'must be very small'. I think you earlier referenced them as almost being able to fit in a phone box to express your view its a small group.
Yeah, okay, now I can see that you've changed perspectives and are criticizing the American political system. My first post to you in this thread was Message 1357. There I said
quote: It's not a change if that's what I've been saying the whole time.
Suggesting such things is as dumb as me arguing with you about how you should change your parliamentary system, and by the way, about that monarchy... a) The dissolution of the monarchy is a realistic long term point of discussionb) We do use alternative methods of voting for certain elections c) We have had a referrendum on AV for General elections d) Proportional representation is fair game for discussion, but a distant likelihood. Who can vote, and how they vote can change in a country. It won't happen if you dismiss it as naive and unworthy of discussion, I expect. As I said the last time you decided to go down this road. In any event, this part of the thread was a response to you telling me that I seemed to okay with the Trump result, and I was just saying that I wasn't OK with Trump AND Hillary AND other things.
That's fine that you're dissatisfied with it. Strange that a guy from the UK cares so much, but fine. A guy from the UK with close family in the United States, working for a company with job opportunities in the States, who lives in the world where America is a significant influence. Hey, you know, I have also argued about German and Turkish court decisions too. Perhaps it's just you guys from America that don't care about what goes on in other countries. 
think it's a safe bet that political parties in the US also analyze election results. And it's this fact I'd be relying on when I voted for someone who was neither Clinton nor Trump, did you not get this yet?
Quite wrong that we can expect the same things will keep happening. Whatever happens in 2020, a repeat of 2016 is unlikely in the extreme. I'd say, from a thermodynamics perspective it's essentially impossible. But that's not what I meant, obviously. What I was saying was that by not fighting for change, you won't get it. Obviously the years change, the politicians change, the economy changes, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you'll continue to have all the same kinds of problems as ever.
I didn't know you were talking about hypotheticals. I thought you were suggesting realistic changes. I'm not really interested in the hypotheticals. They're not going to happen. Nebraska and Maine don't have a winner takes all distribution of electoral votes. I don't see why it's absurd to think a third state might join them. San Francisco, California; Oakland, California; Berkeley, California; San Leandro, California; Takoma Park, Maryland; Basalt, Colorado; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Telluride, Colorado; St. Paul, Minnesota; and Portland, Maine - all use IRV for various elections. I don't think it's that unrealistic. A long term project maybe, and one that may never manifest. But worth arguing in favour of I think.
I wouldn't agree that there's no point talking about it, I just didn't even realize that's what you were talking about. This is a thread about the Trump presidency, and while we've occasionally drifted off the main topic, I think a pretty good proportion of the discussion has been on-topic. I don't think it would be a problem if there were a diversion in this topic to talk about how to change the way the US elects presidents. I don't know if I would participate. It doesn't interest me at the moment, but maybe I'd become interested. It was 50% of my first post - and a good amount of what I've been saying since. It's one of my reasons for not voting for Clinton - to encourage the party to find better ways of picking a candidate.
The popular vote however, is not important. There is a correlation for obvious reasons,... Well, sometimes there's a correlation, sometimes not. Just look at 2016, where Trump won 46.1% of the popular vote but 57% of the electoral college. Look at 1980, where Reagan won 50.7% of popular vote but 91% of the electoral college. The correlation is in the winning - not the numbers. Winning the popular vote usually coincides with winning the electoral. Sometimes even saying uncontroversial things seems to get pushback from you. I actually discussed these very result back in Message 1374, for what its worth.
25% of the People's votes can result in 50.x% of the State's votes. Not sure what this means, unless it's a comment about election participation rates. It means you can win only 25% of the popular vote but gain over 50% of the electoral college. Not likely, naturally. More details can be found in Message 1339 Yes, I was subverting your analogy to use it to reinforce my point. That's really the only option open as a response to an analogy that isn't dismissive in some way. I'm not suggesting they fight a campaign that would win 2016. I'm suggesting they look at the general problems that lead to that loss and try to learn lessons from them.
This appears to have the attributes of being well written and well stated, but honestly I have no idea what it means. Well, erm thank you? I'm not suggesting fighting 2016 again, I'm suggesting learning lessons from 2016. I can't simplify it much more than that.
About focusing more on the working class ...I expect few would answer "working class." Maybe I'm wrong about that, maybe that's specific to my area of the country, we'll see if anyone has any comment. yeah - I've noticed that Americans are as shy of calling themselves working class as Brits are about calling themselves middle class. By all measures I can find I'm middle class - but I still hold to my roots of working in bars and warehouses and factories and try to claim I'm working class. However, I'm sure there is a phenomena of calling *other* people working class exists there. It was working-class whites: Hillary Clinton lost a lot of Obama voters to Donald Trump, Democratic firm says | Salon.com The Dangerous Myth That Hillary Clinton Ignored the Working Class - The Atlantic The Dangerous Myth That Clinton Focused on the Working Class 2016 election: Why the white working class ditched Clinton - CNN
Also strange that you would characterise it as 'the problem' and the cause of Clinton's loss earlier. You're going to have to point me to where I said that. I already did in my post. But here it is again
quote: Very true. Unfortunately it is only in retrospect that Republican voters are realizing that they should have been sending a different message. I don't know if US presidential poll numbers get mentioned in the UK, but he's set a record for continuous low poll numbers by a new president. His base is standing by him, though. The internet means the curious can follow along. Here is a fairly popular political commenter/comedian {chosen for its entertainment factor, and that US audiences have enjoyed it and also - it kind of mirrors the argument here in amusing ways}
So now you're arguing in your hypothetical role as an American citizen? If so, and if you mean the changes you mentioned in your previous message, then good luck, Sisyphus. I'm arguing how I act politically in my country, and how I would, by extension, in yours.
So talk about them for the longer term if that's what you want to talk about. My focus in this thread is on the next four years (hopefully not more than that), and your topic doesn't really interest me, but maybe somebody here is interested. Well, you aren't likely to eradicate the existence of protest voting in the next few years. So what else have you got?
But how our political parties should choose their candidates isn't the topic of this thread So to reiterate Clinton wouldn't have secured my vote. Your argument that sometimes tactical votes are important is not unknown to me, and it is insufficient to persuade me in the 2016 case. I hope that when they draw out the political landscape my vote on the left, along with the other people's will notify the Democrat party that these are easier to pick up than chasing the votes on the right. Maybe the number isn't enough now, but if I stop voting left it's certainly not going to make it more attractive for the party to shift the way I want it. How they go about finding where those votes are and optimising their campaign and candidate is their business. I've offered some ideas around the subject to illustrate that their current methods can fall short. If we want to avoid Trump-likes in the future we'd better hope the Democrats act in such a way to maximise their chances. In any event, that's why I vote for left third party - both where I live, and as a hypothetical American. It is to try to use my vote to show the direction I want to go in - however the Parties decide to try and follow this, to understand the will of the people, with their procedures and analysis.
Escalate away if that's your desire, but you seem interested in serious discussion, so I don't see why you'd do that. I can pretty much guarantee I'll continue to react with sarcastic skepticism when presented with outlandish ideas. You should probably revisit the start of the debate though. The alternate voting system was primarily to show that sometimes the nominee selection method isn't optimal and that this fact may be something to take into consideration when I do think they should be fought for, but my point was principally that rather than attributing the causes to people who voted a third party as contributing to the loss, there might be systemic causes behind the loss. And that since 'changing the people' is probably as (or more) 'outlandish' as 'changing the system so that it better listens to the people' it seems absurd for you to get sarcastically skeptical of what I've said.
Oh, you're definitely better informed about our political system than almost all people here, including Trump, yet speaking as you are from a distance there is just so much you're missing. Plus this might explain some of the things you said, perhaps being opinions from Americans in your family rather than hard information. We don't talk politics. They aren't Trumpians judging by their Facebook but they're certainly right leaning. My father is in oil and abhors the green party. They're all Floridians, Texans and Louisianan. I get my information from reading US News articles, watching US News broadcasts, reading US legal decisions and laws. I pay attention because I care about the world, I care about my family, New Orleans is my second home and well, I find it all round interesting. I'm probably more informed of US politics than I am on UK politics at least half the time. When I was deciding where to go to University it was either the UK and computing or US and law. Strangely my parents dissuaded me from studying law in America...I expect it was the cost Someone was talking about gun laws in the US at my workplace recently, and getting it all wrong (not just arguments on the internet wrong, but really really badly wrong) so I interjected. They were not only surprised by me reciting the second amendment verbatim, they were kind of shocked to hear me referencing Scalia's infamous prefatory vs operative clause distinction. When they asked 'who is Scalia' I realized I needed to get back on the internet! {and no naughty commenting on the time of my post - I practically live EST/EDT!  }
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
This is probably too personal, but why breasts and women's clothes with a beard? Is this a subclass of LGBT where you're attracted to men who are attracted to men who have some of the characteristics of women'? Or you're attracted to women who are attracted to men who have some of the characteristics of women? Or it's just for yourself? My breasts and my beard are nothing to do with attempting to attract certain people, that's for sure. In any event, it's a complicated issue but I typically use the word 'genderqueer' to summarize - though 'genderfuck' may also apply.
I'm sorry to hear that (though I didn't understand the part about "I do get the UK references..."). I mean, you keep drawing attention to my nationality - and I understand that not living there results in a certain distance from things which alters my judgement compared with those living there.
You would never vote for Clinton because she's too far right even though had she been elected these concerns you have about even entering the US would evaporate. You seem like a perfect example of voting against your own best interests. I haven't disagreed in the short term. My interests regarding my vote transcend my immediate personal interests and are focussed on trying to build a better long term future.
Get what? Clinton is already on your side. My vote. And changing her political position just before she begins a Presidential run regarding LGBT issues doesn't win credibility with me. Next time pick someone who has long time principles not someone who switches around for political expediency. If my vote is what is wanted, that is.
And you'll do it from the UK, rather than from the US where you would be now and closer to your family had Clinton been elected. Yup. I doubt the USA will be a place for me to settle down any time in the next 20 years, which would be true whether Clinton won or Trump.
Not sure why you're saying slaughters may not be surmountable. The whole list was of slaughters being followed by victory four years later I was referring to THAT election, not the next one. Bill Clinton's win was probably not something any Republican could have stopped - I was just saying that it would be surprising if Bob Dole was truly the person who would have got the most votes for the Republicans in the actual election.
Pat Buchanan? That joke? No, he would not have done as well as Dole. He was slaughtered 3-1 by Dole in the primaries. They're all jokes, but he did pretty well at the start. The question is how many of the people that voted for Dole in the actual election would also have voted Buchanan? Then the question is, how many people that didn't vote for Dole in the election would have voted Buchanan? Maybe Dole truly does come out on top. That isn't the point of what I was arguing which was the system of selection doesn't actually confidently predict this information.
Don't be silly. It's a continuum that didn't just begin in 2016 of increasing experience, contacts, refinement of positions, alliances, successes, unpredictable events, luck, etc. I'm not being silly. I agree it doesn't begin in 2016. That's rather the point I was making. I would hope that whoever runs in 2020 would also have been reasaonable candidate in 2016 - as their experience should precede 2016. If the candidate only has 4 years of experience that qualify them for the role - that's not great - right?
There was no such person on the radar. Yes, it's the radar I am criticising!
More nonsense, for the same reasons I just gave. Yes, I know your opinion. In an election, however, your opinion isn't the only one in consideration. Whether or not Hillary really is 'evil' is immaterial to whether she wins an election. It's how she's perceived.
The Democratic party is not going to move what you consider far enough to the left by 2020. I thought I'd made it clear that I don't expect them to? I vote for main parties when they move in the right direction, when they move in the wrong direction I withhold my vote. Corbyn gets my vote, Blair does not. The UK Labour party shifted right with Blair's New Labour movement, this was initially successful for them but now moving back to the left has proven successful. I hope it continues to be that way.
Since you're thinking 50-100 years out, why do you care about 2020 anyway? I was talking about what the Democratic party cares about. If they can't find candidates more optimally - that's a problem for them. If they want my 'vote' they'll find a way to move towards me politically - if they don't they don't get my vote. If I'm living there, I'd hope they'd move towards me sooner, rather than later of course.
I didn't see any nuance. What I saw was what you actually wrote:
quote: Here's what I actually wrote:
quote: That second paragraph concedes that maybe Clinton was the best, and pointing out that this is not a good omen for DNC.
Reread what you wrote again:
quote:This is obviously saying that of the two parties, the Republican party and the Democratic party, that "the Democratic party is the one that actually chooses the system it's going to use to pick the nominee," leaving the Republicans as the party that does not do this. Which is absurd. Yes, that is absurd which is why I wouldn't put forward that position. Give me some credit. The nominee in my sentence clearly refers to the Democratic nominee - they certainly don't pick any other nominee after all. The Democratic part selects the Democratic nominee.
Or were you maybe just trying to be cute, stating the incredibly obvious in lengthy fashion that it is the Democrats that define their primary system? I was giving you my reason as to why the Democratic party was to blame. Context helps, here it is:
I thought i was quite explicit. The less they need to learn is how to pick a candidate that excites people and/or that doesn't turn a significant number of people off. To listen to the swing voters. And so on. Then the lesson you're talking about has to be directed not at the Democratic party but at the people who vote in primaries. It's both, but more the former. And that's because the Democratic party is the one that actually chooses the system its going to use to pick the nominee - and if that system is an inferior one then its their fault. The Democrats and Republicans use pretty much the same system - the differences are too minor to be worth exploring, even the issue of superdelegates. If the Democratic system of selecting candidates is inferior, then the Republican system is also inferior. Yes, they are both inferior to other methods.
It's a level playing field. Plus, to say it once again, none of this is going to change by 2020. If you want to talk about significant change then you're going to have to return to talking in the context of your 50-100 year timeframe. Yes, it's a level playing field. I'm kind of hoping the Democrats will find a BETTER way than the Republicans at selecting a nominee who has the best chance of winning. I don't expect it'll happen soon, but until they do, they will remain vulnerable to the 'protest vote' problem that can, in close races, lead to losses; along with, to use your characterisation, catastrophic outcomes.
Sure, the people in the Primaries could vote smarter - but their information is restricted because the selection method provides limited information so their blame is less. Nonsense. You should probably be more clear when you're talking about 2016 and 2020 versus 50-100 years out, and not be so cute in your expression. I have no idea what the time has to do with this point. I was talking about how different selection methods provide more information than the present selection method. It doesn't matter if that selection method is used in 1900 or 2100.
And...we're back into the 50-100 year timeframe, not that there was any hint that you were changing timeframes again. Anyway, good luck with all that. I'm just worried about getting through the next four years. Seriously, there's no timeframe shift. I am simply talking about how the present system restricts primary voters information and thus the primary voters are less to blame than the system they operate in if and when errors are made.
But they obviously didn't say anything about assuming Clinton's election was assured. quote: Pretty much echoes my sentiments.
Again, absolutely nothing about believing Clinton's election was assured. quote: Pretty much covers that. Whether that person thinks she is safe or not, they wouldn't vote for her for political reasons. There is no indication in their words to suggest 'Because she is safe, but I don't like her as much as Sanders, I will vote third party'
I think there must be a great deal of overlap between the two groups you described who withheld their vote from Clinton, one who felt Clinton's election assured, the other with political reasoning. Why the former group wasn't using political reasoning you don't say, and this seems a nonsensical set of groupings. quote: Do you have any evidence that this group must be very small?Do you have any evidence that the group of people who withheld their vote, thinking it was safe was bigger? You've changed back and forth between the 2016/2020 timeframe and the 50-100 year timeframe innumerable times. As I've said, your changes are hard to follow, sometimes clear from context, oftentimes not. The problems I raised are for now The solutions I propose to those problems are unlikely to occur by the next election. Does this clear up your confusion here?
Once again you're completely unclear about when you're talking about. Is this about 2020 or 50-100 years from now? Who knows? I doubt 2020 will see us with any of the changes, but the problems will still be there. And really my main thrust here was on pointing out that protest votes exist, can be better predicted with other systems and that we should probably try and get those systems instituted soon. It's possible that the Trump victory will motivate some more States to proportionally distribute their electoral votes by 2020.
Nope, and I still don't get it Crazy. The Democrats will analyze the result. There are a number of ways and means. Let's discuss one simple one:
In this example, Party A will want to move rightwards - there are lots of votes to grab by doing so. Likewise, Party B will want to move to the right. By successfully getting close to the median, they score the most votes. Complicating things slightly is that, let us suppose that there are people in the tails that may opt third party if the main party goes too far away from them. Once they are already close to the median, it may be less advantageous to continue approaching it as they may drop more votes in their tails than they gain in the peak area. So think of my third party vote as my means to try and shift the effective optimal strategy for the main party leftwards.
You know, politics never remains static. If you're still alive in your 50-100 year timeframe and the US finally hits that political sweet spot that you seek, it won't stay there for long. Things will change. Staying simple, it has been a long march to the left with disturbing periodic swings back to the right.
You "voted" against your own best interests and by result (possibly - no way to know for sure) are still stuck in the UK. You know, you're not going to live forever. At some point, and I suggest sooner rather than later, you might want to jump down off that 50-100 year horse of principle you're mounted on and go off and do what you want to do. I judge my best interests (and others too) to be long term movement to the left/progressive side of things. I expect it'll be decades before politics is generally close to me, but in the decades that I have been voting some progress to that end has been achieved.
And...we're back to the 50-100 year timeframe. You know, it's okay when people are interested in different things. I'm interested in 2018 and 2020. You're interested in 50-100 years from now. There's nothing wrong with that. We were both talking about the fact that 2016 wouldn't be the same campaign as 2020; I was saying that if things don't change systemically you'll have the same problems then and going forward. The 50-100 years thing is to explain why I vote the way I do today, because you expressed that it seemed to be against short term interests.
And...we're back to 2020. Yes, I already mentioned Maine and Nebraska quite a while ago in a reply to RAZD in Message 1354, and somewhere else I described the possibility of another state or two making that change, so I don't think it's absurd at all. What I think is absurd is when you take something I say about 2016-2020 and interpret it in a 50-100 year context, or vice versa. I've not interpreted any such thing. But you were telling me that some of the changes I proposed aren't going to happen by 2020 and that it was fantasy and and so on. I was pointing out that some things might happen in that time frame. I'm glad we agree that some change may happen...and glacially over the longer term - it'll add up towards something I think works well. A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step.
And...we're back to the 50-100 year timeframe. I think it's great that there are people working toward the eventual goal of IRV at a national level. No objections and nothing I ever argued against. I'm glad you no longer see what I've been saying as fantasy.
By 'the system' I was talking about alternate ways of voting - either in the Primaries or the main election or both. But most likely, nothing will change. I mentioned 'long term' in Message 1360, my second message to you. Which I honestly didn't think would be interpreted as 2-5 elections. It was my fourth post where I told you that long term is more like 12-25 elections - Message 1391. Hardly 'much much later', I feel. And that was about my voting choices, whereas my first post was about the current problems. My first post was 50% about the systemic problems. That was what you said you didn't realize I was talking about. The reply chain above should help clarify this.
What you actually said back in Message 1391 and that I was replying to was this:
quote:You implied a correlation between the popular vote and electoral vote, not the winning. I hope it is now cleared up that I was talking about becoming President. the popular vote is not important to becoming President, although there is a correlation between the popular vote and winning the Presidency.
But I've never objected to learning lessons from 2016. I just don't think that one of the lessons was that Clinton was the wrong candidate. This was the Maginot line argument, incidentally. I suggested there were lessons to be learned and made my suggestion as to one of them. You accused me of trying to plan to fight 2016 in 2020, I said I was suggesting lessons be learned, you said you didn't understand what I said exactly, so I simplified and now you are saying we should learn lessons from 2016. I'm glad we got this far. If Clinton wasn't the wrong candidate and if her marginal losses in key areas wasn't related to the protest vote issue, then most of the conversation is moot except in so far as the ideas I've raised can still avoid such a situation from occurring in the future.
Wow, you went back five days of posts for that one. Not only is five days not a long time, but given we're posting probably less than one post a day in this back and forth, its not even a lot of posts. Especially when you consider the post in which I 'went back' was made on 19th October (Message 1391) so it wasn't even five days.
After living here a while you'd find the reality on the ground changing your current thinking quite a bit. I doubt it would on this particular issue. It's not like the Party I tend to vote for now has a hope in hell of ever fielding a Prime Minister and my hatred of Conservative policies is pretty strong.
And...we're back to sending messages again. I'm sorry, has that not been a consistent part of this discussion with regards to why I'd vote third party?
Obviously the way to avoid Trump in 2016 was to vote for Clinton. Well that didn't work out so well did it?
Who said anything about "changing the people"? That preposterous insertion into the discussion is yours alone. Well you did just say people should have voted Clinton, right? You only get that if those people change the way they vote, you can only achieve that by changing their voting philosophy.
Florida, Texas and Louisiana all voted Trump, you say your family members are right leaning, so they likely voted Trump if they voted at all. They could also have voted Clinton, who is on the right. And that would be in line with their Facebook posts which expressed horror at the fact that Trump won. Maybe they voted Trump. But given 38% of Louisiana voted Clinton, and given they're European background...I'm inclined towards them having voted Clinton. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
(1)
