Jump to content

U.S. Elections: Trumpsterfire Unchained


Mr. Chatywin et al.

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I know we had talked in the past about structural changes to the government. If multiple parties are desirable, then perhaps a change to a proportional system of representation, rather than a winner takes all system would be in order?

A  long as there is a winner takes all system, there will always be two parties I think.

I have no strong opinion on which is better- ie -whether it's better to make compromises at the party level or on the parliamentarian level.

I'd love to see proportional representation adopted for the House of Representatives (that does away with single member districts).  It would help the National Legislature focus on National issues.  It would help prevent neighborhoods in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Houston from being turned into politicial fiefdoms from which largess is distrubuted at election time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Also, on that LA times poll, here's a great article about how one guy from Illinois is making the whole thing garbage:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/upshot/how-one-19-year-old-illinois-man-is-distorting-national-polling-averages.html?_r=0&referer=https://t.co/tqlbxkvXN8

That explains so much. I've been wondering for a while about this poll. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All y'all thinking that coalitions can't change should remember that the "solid South" voted Democrat for decades.  That "yellow dog Democrat" thing?  Yeah, about that.....  So, you know, I do think you may see some realignment here.  Particularly as the baby boomers age out.  Not sure how it will go, but I believe thinking that nothing will change is shortsighted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

 So what happens?  There are actually stresses on both parties.  It's just the Republican stress that is so apparent given their cheeto colored leader.

No the Democratic party is not perfect.

But, I think any claim that both are "equally bad" must be rejected. I don't think the difference between the parties is simply a matter that the problems of the Republican Party is just more visible because they nominated Donald Trump.

Democrats sometimes to do and say dumb things. But, the amount of idiocy that comes out of the Republican Party just isn't tolerable anymore.

When the Democrats have to defend Milton Friedman against Republicans, something has gone off the rails. And it isn't just on economic matters, obviously, where things have gone off the rails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

No the Democratic party is not perfect.

But, I think any claim that both are "equally bad" must be rejected. I don't think the difference between the parties is simply a matter that the problems of the Republican Party is just more visible because they nominated Donald Trump.

That wasn't exactly my point.  I agree that the Democratic party is more coherent right now.  However, there are pressures from the left within the party (see, Sanders, Bernie and associated (and continuing) movement) and internal infighting (see Wasserman-Shultz, Deborah).  At the same time there is potentially a chance to pick up centrists appalled by Le Donald.  Which way does the party go?  What do Bernites do?  How does it play out?  I don't think they are equivalent, but I do think that the Democratic party also has some stuff to figure out in the fall out from this election cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

That wasn't exactly my point.  I agree that the Democratic party is more coherent right now.  However, there are pressures from the left within the party (see, Sanders, Bernie and associated (and continuing) movement) and internal infighting (see Wasserman-Shultz, Deborah).  At the same time there is potentially a chance to pick up centrists appalled by Le Donald.  Which way does the party go?  What do Bernites do?  How does it play out?  I don't think they are equivalent, but I do think that the Democratic party also has some stuff to figure out in the fall out from this election cycle.

Okay fair enough. I wasn't sure.

You do raise some good issues. I'd say, if centrist and maybe right of center people want to become Democrats then perhaps they should be made welcome to the party. Let's avoid talk of "true liberals" or Democrats in name only. And certainly, lets avoid a couple of talk show host being to set the agenda for the entire party.

There will be fights of course, but maybe some decent policy will come out over those fights.

With regard to Bernie I think there was some pretty interesting fights between the center left and the more left wing of he party. I think those fights were generally healthy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

No the Democratic party is not perfect.

But, I think any claim that both are "equally bad" must be rejected. I don't think the difference between the parties is simply a matter that the problems of the Republican Party is just more visible because they nominated Donald Trump.

Democrats sometimes to do and say dumb things. But, the amount of idiocy that comes out of the Republican Party just isn't tolerable anymore.

When the Democrats have to defend Milton Friedman against Republicans, something has gone off the rails. And it isn't just on economic matters, obviously, where things have gone off the rails.

OGE,

Neither I nor Zabzie are claiming equivalence.  She is pointing out potential problems.  Should the Democratic party reject socially liberal but economically conservative people who are disgusted by the Republican Party because they don't buy into left leaning economic policies?  Are you saying Democrats are the "big tent" they are portrayed to be and would send the voters I describe elsewhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

OGE,

Neither I nor Zabzie are claiming equivalence.  She is pointing out potential problems.  Should the Democratic party reject socially liberal but economically conservative people who are disgusted by the Republican Party because they don't buy into left leaning economic policies?  Are you saying Democrats are the "big tent" they are portrayed to be and would send the voters I describe elsewhere?

If those people are ardent supply siders, then yes. If they they believe in Austrian Economics, then yes. There isn't any place for either of those types within the Democratic Party. They can form their own party. Good luck forming one though that doesn't rely on white resentment and sexism.

If they just tend to be more skeptical about the role of government, then that's fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Sounds like he himself might be getting nuked sometime today...

 

Is there evidence that Mr.Oswalt is in a position to really know this -- especially when he uses the verb "feel"?  Seems to me this could be just wishful feeling on his part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ormond said:

Is there evidence that Mr.Oswalt is in a position to really know this -- especially when he uses the verb "feel"?  Seems to me this could be just wishful feeling on his part. 

Not that I know of, but he's been fairly prescient throughout this election season. I guess we'll find out if he's in the know or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

OGE,

Neither I nor Zabzie are claiming equivalence.  She is pointing out potential problems.  Should the Democratic party reject socially liberal but economically conservative people who are disgusted by the Republican Party because they don't buy into left leaning economic policies?  Are you saying Democrats are the "big tent" they are portrayed to be and would send the voters I describe elsewhere?

But what does this mean? 

Should they disavow their support? Tell them to take their votes and shove them up their asses? Of course not.

Should they change their policies to win their support? As purely an electoral question, only if the votes they think they'll win from the center exceed those they'd lose from the left. As an ideological question, I guess it depends on which direction you'd like to see the Democratic Party move. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Trump's strategy for the remainder of the campaign: Go nuclear on Clinton:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-new-attack-strategy-keep-clinton-voters-home-1476221895

Another amazing quote in there showing his disrespect/misunderstanding of our constitutional system.  He apparently implied that if he wins, Paul Ryan should be removed as speaker.  While it is true that the House could choose a different speaker, the position is certainly NOT a presidential appointment.  Nor should it be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

That wasn't exactly my point.  I agree that the Democratic party is more coherent right now.  However, there are pressures from the left within the party (see, Sanders, Bernie and associated (and continuing) movement) and internal infighting (see Wasserman-Shultz, Deborah).  At the same time there is potentially a chance to pick up centrists appalled by Le Donald.  Which way does the party go?  What do Bernites do?  How does it play out?  I don't think they are equivalent, but I do think that the Democratic party also has some stuff to figure out in the fall out from this election cycle.

Sanders didn't even come close to winning the primary and is now stumping for Clinton. The DWS stuff is alot more about her being shitty at her job and people disliking her for it and just generally memes more then anything. There's factions within the Democratic party cause it contains more then 1 person but it's still coherent and still got a stable coalition.

The problem with all this talk is the same thing I keep bringing up: where are the numbers coming from?

You can't form a new party or have a party shift without establishing who's shifting to absorb what voters and how the voters they leave behind form up into even a vaguely coherent party. The deplorables are too big a faction to leave out in the cold. If the more traditional small-c conservative right-wingers split off, they will be the ones left out of the GOP and there's little reason to see the Democrats working to accommodate them beyond what you see in this election because at the end of the day, they aren't numerous enough to demand control, as demonstrated by the fact that they are steadily losing control of the GOP itself.

It's not enough to just say "Well, things could change" because things can always change. You have to articulate a reason why they will and how they will and within what time frame. The Solid South turned Republican for a reason and to speculate about a similar change one must supply one as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Another amazing quote in there showing his disrespect/misunderstanding of our constitutional system.  He apparently implied that if he wins, Paul Ryan should be removed as speaker.  While it is true that the House could choose a different speaker, the position is certainly NOT a presidential appointment.  Nor should it be.

Bannon made the comment somewhere that he wanted Ryan out by spring. Can't remember where I read that, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Shryke said:

Sanders didn't even come close to winning the primary and is now stumping for Clinton. The DWS stuff is alot more about her being shitty at her job and people disliking her for it and just generally memes more then anything. There's factions within the Democratic party cause it contains more then 1 person but it's still coherent and still got a stable coalition.

The problem with all this talk is the same thing I keep bringing up: where are the numbers coming from?

You can't form a new party or have a party shift without establishing who's shifting to absorb what voters and how the voters they leave behind form up into even a vaguely coherent party. The deplorables are too big a faction to leave out in the cold. If the more traditional small-c conservative right-wingers split off, they will be the ones left out of the GOP and there's little reason to see the Democrats working to accommodate them beyond what you see in this election because at the end of the day, they aren't numerous enough to demand control, as demonstrated by the fact that they are steadily losing control of the GOP itself.

It's not enough to just say "Well, things could change" because things can always change. You have to articulate a reason why they will and how they will and within what time frame. The Solid South turned Republican for a reason and to speculate about a similar change one must supply one as well.

I don't think there is any risk of a third party, but I do think that the parties are going to change potentially dramatically.  My reasons have to do with (1) increased mobility - that is, the country-wide migrations, mainly to sunbelt states, (2) rise of the millenial voter - this is a serious bloc and much like the boomers, I don't think the bloc neatly fits into the existing boxes, (3) the actual issues that do seem to concern voters on the more extreme ends of both parties - that is, there is alignment both right and left on some issues that neither party particularly well-addresses right now (e.g., trade, the shrinking middle class/concentration of wealth, the US's role in the greater world).  One party or another (and currently it looks like the Democrats are in the best position to do this) will find a way to build a coherent platform with a charismatic candidate that addresses this stuff in a way that appeals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...