Mudguard Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 Regarding the protests, they are chanting "Not my president." That doesn't sound like they are accepting the legitimacy of his election. He won and he's their president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorn Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 At least one good thing has come out of this fucking election: The Democratic Party Establishment is Finished Quote What was the line? Hillary Clinton would do well in a general election, because she’d been “vetted” for 20-some years and there was nothing new Republicans could try? Just writing that, I recognize that it’s the funniest line I’ve ever seen, and yet it was the exact argument Clinton used in two separate campaigns for the Democratic nomination. The ace ground game, the brilliant ad-makers, the top Hollywood talent, and the best analytics operation ever assembled? This was all a joke. The best analytics team in the world, apparently, couldn’t find in their numbers that it was worth making a single stop to Wisconsin following the convention in a campaign against a Republican whose base appeal was in the Rust Belt. Not that an extra visit would have changed the result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 5 minutes ago, dmc515 said: The bolded is why it's naive. Sure, Trump's honeymoon will entail passing some type of pointless tax cuts that hurt the economy (a GOP trademark) and some alterations to Obamacare (which frankly wouldn't be a bad thing). Gridlock and polarization aren't going to magically go away because there's now a Republican president. And the GOP establishment that just spent the last year plus still constitutes a large portion of both chambers. If you think it's easy to push through a cohesive legislative agenda with a razor thin majority in the Senate - and with a president that above all holds grudges - you haven't been paying attention. Why not? You seem to have this idea that gridlock is a thing that just happens rather then largely being a specifically tailored GOP strategy against the Democratic party. Without fear of a veto, there's no reason they can't get a ton of things passed that the party as a whole can agree on. And judicial nominations are most definitely one of those. They don't need to worry about the Democrats anymore. They don't need to negotiate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 is there any virtue to this outcome at all? like, when Trump and the Republican party run the country to the ground, does it finally become inescapable that these toxic ideologies are in no one's self interest? Will this help it to kind of collapse on itself more thoroughly than it would have with a hillary win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 6 minutes ago, Mr Fixit said: And what does that tell us? That the people want the Democratic Party to CHANGE, steer away from corporate shills and foreign interventionists like Hillary. When the party had a candidate that the people perceived as authentic and aligned with their wishes, they chose Obama. I'll again remind that the same is true of Bernie who led Trump by double digits in the polls. Solution is real easy if you really think about it. Nominate someone worthy of respect instead of spent criminals like Hillary. DNC has no one to blame except themselves. Their corrupt kleptocracy bit them in the ass. Tough luck. No? I mean, I know you want to think that but that's because you see everything as fitting into the narrative you've already decided on. "The sun rose today, changing the night sky from dark to light, so obviously people wanted to break with the establishment!" What it actually suggests is that without Obama at the top of the ticket, those demographics don't turn out as hard for the Democratic party. That the extent of the percentages Obama was pulling were based on the man himself and that absent his presence at the top, the Democrats can't count on those groups turning out to that degree. If this was really about this silly narrative you are pushing, then why did those people turn out for Obama and not Clinton when both have very similar policies, Clinton was endorsed and campaigned for by Obama and Clinton positioned herself as a continuation of Obama? Clinton literally said "I'm more Obama!". Why does this group that voted for Obama suddenly not want to vote for the person Obama himself is saying is more Obama? Your argument is incoherent dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Selig Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 2 minutes ago, Gorn said: At least one good thing has come out of this fucking election: The Democratic Party Establishment is Finished This is pretty hilarious coming from a site which spent the last few months proclaiming how Trump is the new Hitler and the only reason for him to win is because many Americans would choose evil instead of the Democratic messiah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 1 minute ago, butterbumps! said: is there any virtue to this outcome at all? like, when Trump and the Republican party run the country to the ground, does it finally become inescapable that these toxic ideologies are in no one's self interest? Will this help it to kind of collapse on itself more thoroughly than it would have with a hillary win? That's not how it works. GWB had already demonstrated his incompetence in '04, and he still managed to beat Kerry. The House will be in Republican hands for at least another 14 years. As for the Senate, the Democrats will have a lot of ground to cover in the next midterms, so there's only a very small chance they can actually get back to a majority there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baxus Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 Living in a country where you the best you can hope for in the election is that the lesser evil will win and the most loudmouth and very ignorant and/or corrupt politicians ruled for most of the last three decades (and still do), I feel for American people at this moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudguard Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 So how does Obama respond? He's been extremely critical of Trump, saying that he unfit to be president. They clearly hate each other's guts. Does Obama try and unite the country or does he continue the divisiveness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Fixit Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 1 minute ago, Shryke said: No? I mean, I know you want to think that but that's because you see everything as fitting into the narrative you've already decided on. "The sun rose today, changing the night sky from dark to light, so obviously people wanted to break with the establishment!" What it actually suggests is that without Obama at the top of the ticket, those demographics don't turn out as hard for the Democratic party. That the extent of the percentages Obama was pulling were based on the man himself and that absent his presence at the top, the Democrats can't count on those groups turning out to that degree. If you don't think that Democrats lost because people were disillusioned with their policies, I'm really sorry man. I don't live in US, I have no right to tell you what to think, but your opinion seems awfully misguided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolves Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 4 minutes ago, butterbumps! said: is there any virtue to this outcome at all? like, when Trump and the Republican party run the country to the ground, does it finally become inescapable that these toxic ideologies are in no one's self interest? Will this help it to kind of collapse on itself more thoroughly than it would have with a hillary win? America deserves Trump. Now I need to just be done cause I feel like crap. My stomach has been hurting for hours and I think it's because of this election and outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 7 minutes ago, Mudguard said: Regarding the protests, they are chanting "Not my president." That doesn't sound like they are accepting the legitimacy of his election. He won and he's their president. They are repudiating him, not claiming he is illegitimate. But hey, you keep fucking that chicken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolves Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 1 minute ago, Mudguard said: So how does Obama respond? He's been extremely critical of Trump, saying that he unfit to be president. They clearly hate each other's guts. Does Obama try and unite the country or does he continue the divisiveness? He should continue the divisiveness. He should wish America luck refuse any and all contact with Trump and be on his way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Fixit Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 3 minutes ago, Shryke said: If this was really about this silly narrative you are pushing, then why did those people turn out for Obama and not Clinton when both have very similar policies Because politics are also about appearances. People voted for Obama because they thought he'd bring real change. The guy fooled even the Nobel Comittee, we can forgive the general public. C'mon, whatever you think of Obama's and Clinton's policies, he's at least an authentic guy as opposed to a flip-flop talking point machine that is Hillary. People recognized that and voted accordingly. Democrats like to think they're smarter than Republicans. It may even be true. But if these guys pride themselves on their progressiveness and intelligence, well, be sure to next time nominate a person who actually shares those values, or at least APPEARS to share them (cue Obama). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 5 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said: That's not how it works. GWB had already demonstrated his incompetence in '04, and he still managed to beat Kerry. The House will be in Republican hands for at least another 14 years. As for the Senate, the Democrats will have a lot of ground to cover in the next midterms, so there's only a very small chance they can actually get back to a majority there. i think what i'm asking is whether the inevitable disaster that is the Trump presidency, with its fevered demagoguery, reliance on absolutely salacious and untrue media outlets, and worsened material outcomes for all but the highest tier of income will wake people the fuck up. i mean, people really voted against their own self interests. It's rather astonishing. It seems like they seriously don't understand what they're signing away by voting for Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 Just now, Shryke said: Why not? You seem to have this idea that gridlock is a thing that just happens rather then largely being a specifically tailored GOP strategy against the Democratic party. Without fear of a veto, there's no reason they can't get a ton of things passed that the party as a whole can agree on. It's not a strategy "specifically tailored" by the GOP. Obstruction has been the strategy of the minority party since polarization began to reach its current heights - namely the beginning of the Clinton administration. Obama got through a stimulus package and the ACA, and that was with a supermajority in the Senate before Scott Brown. That's it. You are portraying unified government as if it is a blank check for the majority party when in reality a member of Congress' sole concern is reelection. And reelection in a polarized electorate wherein the president's party almost invariably (other than 1998 and 2002) loses seats during midterms. And, in this case, reelection when the leader of the party has historically high unfavorables, and that's what we're starting at. The institutional and contextual factors are overwhelmingly against any type of drastic substantive change even before one considers Trump's ability to navigate the legislative arena and successfully administer policy among the bureaucracy. You are right about federal judges though - Reid fucked the Dems on that one. OTOH, Obama padded the lead in the appellate and district courts pretty well because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liffguard Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 Just now, The Wolves said: He should continue the divisiveness. He should wish America luck refuse any and all contact with Trump and be on his way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris the Blade Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 6 minutes ago, Mudguard said: So how does Obama respond? He's been extremely critical of Trump, saying that he unfit to be president. They clearly hate each other's guts. Does Obama try and unite the country or does he continue the divisiveness? Yea, unite it with the fucking bigot that tried to question your legitimacy as president through the racist birther bullshit. He should tell it like it is, I mean Trump supporters love that so much. Oh wait, they only like that when it's bashing women, the disabled, muslims and people of color. Anything aimed at them and they whine like the fucking hypersensitive shits they truly are. Yea, he should just tell it like it is, he's unfit, he's unhinged and he's a horrible person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 4 minutes ago, Gorn said: At least one good thing has come out of this fucking election: The Democratic Party Establishment is Finished I was just reading the same article and I wouldn't bet money on it. Clinton herself is probably finished -- losing to Obama is one thing, losing to Trump is quite another. However, her backers constitute most of the upper tiers of the Democratic party as well as their top donors. These people deserve to be swept from power, but there's nobody with the ability to do the sweeping. They may sacrifice some people who demonstrably broke the rules to assist Clitnon (e.g. Brazile or Wasserman Schultz), but most of the establishment will remain in place. Interestingly enough, it is the Republican party that may see some measure of housecleaning. Quite a few people opposed Trump -- sometimes even openly -- and now he is in a position to retaliate. 1 minute ago, The Wolves said: He should continue the divisiveness. He should wish America luck refuse any and all contact with Trump and be on his way. That would be exceedingly stupid and I very much doubt that he will do it. The Democrats are obviously going to try obstructing the Republicans, but there's no need to be a sore loser and no need for discourtesy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 30 minutes ago, Mudguard said: Regarding 538 versus Sam Wang's models, it's obviously clear which model was better. Silver learned from his mistake from the Republican primary and added a relatively large degree of uncertainty to his results. Sam Wang had Clinton winning at 99%. Lot's of people here dismissing 538 in favor of Wang with no clear rationale. Pretty obvious now it was just confirmation bias that was driving the preference. It's not really obvious at all. I mean, it's obvious PEC was wrong about the shape of the election, but that does not entail it's obvious 538 was either. Like, to illustrate I could have said after the primaries "Who the fuck knows who will win?" and created an election forecast model that was literally just 50/50 Trump/Clinton. By your measure I would have been more correct even then Silver and had the better model. But obviously that's not so because my model here is literally nothing. It's just assigning arbitrary percentages to each end case and calling it a day. Deciding based on who had a higher percentage for a Trump win fundamentally mistakes how these models work or what they mean. Fundamentally if I said there was a 10% chance Trump would win based on my assumptions, how do we know this isn't just the 10% case. You can roll snake-eyes sometimes, it happens. And we've only got 1 trial to go with here, so it's actually incredibly difficult to judge the accuracy of any model based on just that. What you would need to do is look at the inner workings of the model, the assumptions being made, and try and figure out if they were right or not and why or why not. The only thing obvious here is that most of these models or the polling they were based on were wrong about this election and how the voter turnout would look. It's not yet obvious if 538's assumptions were any more correct then anyone else's though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.