US Politics returns: the post-Election thread

[aceluby]

32 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

They went for Trump in part because the Democrats took them for granted or at least felt like they did. People in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin who have voted Democrat for how long?  Did they get suckered? Sure. Are they going to get buyer's remorse? Almost certainly, but the Trump campaign made the effort. 

No.  This didn't actually happen.  The vast majority of people that voted for Trump ALWAYS vote Republican.  Did he catch a few dems and independents?  Sure, but they were basically offset by the few sane republicans that didn't vote for him.  Overall he just got his base out.

He DID NOT win 'in part' because Democrats took for granted voters that voted for Trump.  What democrats took for granted were voters who decided not to vote or vote third party.  This hogwash getting pushed that the Democrats somehow lost votes to Trump when there were 5-6 million less voters who voted for the two big parties is just ridiculous.

What this proves is the exact reason why Republicans want to make voting as difficult process as possible.  The lower the voter turnout, the likelier they are to win.  

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'd suggest though that there is a sort of "conservative elitism" that has racial, gender, and economic components.

For some reason, that never gets complained about.

And it seems to me that many college educated center lefties are actually trying to check the elitist bullshit of rich conservative guys.

Of course there is, that was never in dispute but not what I am speaking of. 

They are trying to check the elitism bullshit of rich conservatives as they should. But they fail miserably when they direct their own elitism towards working class conservatives. Aren't they supposed to be better than that? Or am I mistaken?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, aceluby said:

No.  This didn't actually happen.  The vast majority of people that voted for Trump ALWAYS vote Republican.  Did he catch a few dems and independents?  Sure, but they were basically offset by the few sane republicans that didn't vote for him.  Overall he just got his base out.

He DID NOT win 'in part' because Democrats took for granted voters that voted for Trump.  What democrats took for granted were voters who decided not to vote or vote third party.  This hogwash getting pushed that the Democrats somehow lost votes to Trump when there were 5-6 million less voters who voted for the two big parties is just ridiculous.

What this proves is the exact reason why Republicans want to make voting as difficult process as possible.  The lower the voter turnout, the likelier they are to win.  

ace,

There were voter ID measures in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin that suppressed voter turnout for Democrats?

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

11 minutes ago, aceluby said:

No.  This didn't actually happen.  The vast majority of people that voted for Trump ALWAYS vote Republican.  Did he catch a few dems and independents?  Sure, but they were basically offset by the few sane republicans that didn't vote for him.  Overall he just got his base out.

He DID NOT win 'in part' because Democrats took for granted voters that voted for Trump.  What democrats took for granted were voters who decided not to vote or vote third party.  This hogwash getting pushed that the Democrats somehow lost votes to Trump when there were 5-6 million less voters who voted for the two big parties is just ridiculous.

What this proves is the exact reason why Republicans want to make voting as difficult process as possible.  The lower the voter turnout, the likelier they are to win.  

Taking independant voters and first tine for granted is just as bad. Taking voters for granted is wrong across the board and they did that where it mattered. Do more to get out the the 47% that stated home .  

[Kalbear]

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 Don't alienate the people you're trying to convince.

Hell how many posts did we see over the last year that said "independents don't matter"?  They sure as hell mattered this year.

Citation needed. Why do you think that?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Citation needed. Why do you think that?

Kalbear,

Trump won in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  All states that have gone for the Democratic candidates for a very long time.  The last time Wisconsin went for a Republican in a Presidential election was 1984, same with Michigan.  1988 was the last time Pennsylvania went to a Republican presidential candidate.  Are you saying Trump's victories there were accomplished without bringing independents into his camp?

Trump's win in those three States is why I think independents mattered, particularly this year.

http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Kalbear,

Trump won in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  All states that have gone for the Democratic candidates for a very long time.  The last time Wisconsin went for a Republican in a Presidential election was 1984, same with Michigan.  1988 was the last time Pennsylvania went to a Republican presidential candidate.  Are you saying Trump's victories there were accomplished without bringing independents into his camp?

http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/

Those were all States (and Iowa) that backed Obama by big margins in 2008, and by smaller margins in 2012.  Plainly, Clinton's campaign was doing something wrong there.

[Little Scribe of Naath]

He really has a fragile ego....

[The Killer Snark]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Kalbear,

Trump won in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  All states that have gone for the Democratic candidates for a very long time.  The last time Wisconsin went for a Republican in a Presidential election was 1984, same with Michigan.  1988 was the last time Pennsylvania went to a Republican presidential candidate.  Are you saying Trump's victories there were accomplished without bringing independents into his camp?

Trump's win in those three States is why I think independents mattered, particularly this year.

http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/

Are you sure you never found that mentioned on a site run by the Far Left?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

38 minutes ago, Fez said:

I'd take Rubio off that list and I'd add Lee. Lee's one of the most conservative senators around, but he really doesn't like Trump. 

Hatch and Cochran may be important as well. They've been in the Senate since the 1970s and may believe in upholding senate traditions, much like Leahy on the Democratic side does.

Or maybe none of them will show any spine, certainly the House isn't so far, but Senators are quite different from Representatives so I still have some hope.

I included Rubio because he was the one guy that showed some guts and said the Republicans shouldn't be joyful over the DNC/Podesta hacks. 

Lee is in the same boat as Cruz and a few others in my eyes. They might stand up to Trump or they might be seduced by the conservative carrot. It's too early to know what that group will do.

Institutionalists like Hatch and Cochran are also hard to read. Their behavior with regards to the Garland nomination has caused me to lose faith in them.

I House is an afterthought. They're going to do as they're told. What's the over/under on how many pieces of legislation they'll pass in the first month? 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, The Killer Snark said:

Are you sure you never found that mentioned on a site run by the Far Left?

What?  

[The Killer Snark]

I made a perfectly astute point. Every person on here, it seems to me, is merely working from assumption, instead of evidence, who is knocking Trump supporters. Your comment on Independents was a perflectly valid one, but I picked it out to make a joke. Every shred of evidence concerning the provenance of the riots is being ignored by the Left on this thread merely because the sites and videos pointing it out tend to be Right Wing ones, or at least independent of the Left and critical of the Democratic establishment. So the evidence gets rejected. But we know for a fact from the Podesta leaks that there has been phenomenal collusion between the Democrats and most of the mainstream media, to the point where they aren't even news channels but simply propaganda carriers. And people here are far more likely to give credit to propaganda vehicles like Mother Jones in spite of these vehicles for dissemination of political viewpoints being objectively far, far more partisan that the Right Wing ones which - by sheer necessity of circumstance - are the only ones likely to carry any news.

And I say this as a centre-right social libertarian. I myself don't trust the Alt-Right. People of my ilk tend to see them as the Right Wing version of honest and passionate enough but otherwise just useful idiots

[BloodRider]

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 Don't alienate the people you're trying to convince.

Hell how many posts did we see over the last year that said "independents don't matter"?  They sure as hell mattered this year.

That was not the claim.  The claim was that if you play with independent candidates the likely result will be Benito Trumpalini.  And, well, ecco, hai visto! 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TKS,

USA Today reports on the rioting in Portland:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/11/13/anti-trump-protest-portland-devolves-into-riot/93760244/

CBS News.  Right wing?:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/riot-declared-in-portland-oregon-amid-new-wave-of-anti-trump-demos/

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

That was not the claim.  The claim was that if you play with independent candidates the likely result will be Benito Trumpalini.  And, well, ecco, hai visto! 

No, Shryke and a number of other boarders, in the lead up to the election, explicitly said that the independent vote is not relevant.  It is my opinion that the results in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin suggest that independents matter greatly in those three states that for the first time in decades went for a Republican Presidential candidate.

[butterbumps!]

17 minutes ago, The Killer Snark said:

I made a perfectly astute point. Every person on here, it seems to me, is merely working from assumption, instead of evidence, who is knocking Trump supporters. Your comment on Independents was a perflectly valid one, but I picked it out to make a joke. Every shred of evidence concerning the provenance of the riots is being ignored by the Left on this thread merely because the sites and videos pointing it out tend to be Right Wing ones, or at least independent of the Left and critical of the Democratic establishment. So the evidence gets rejected. But we know for a fact from the Podesta leaks that there has been phenomenal collusion between the Democrats and most of the mainstream media, to the point where they aren't even news channels but simply propaganda carriers. And people here are far more likely to give credit to propaganda vehicles like Mother Jones in spite of these vehicles for dissemination of political viewpoints being objectively far, far more partisan that the Right Wing ones which - by sheer necessity of circumstance - are the only ones likely to carry any news.

And I say this as a centre-right social libertarian. I myself don't trust the Alt-Right. People of my ilk tend to see them as the Right Wing version of honest and passionate enough but otherwise just useful idiots

Bias in sources isn't the issue.  It's about looking to sources that report with journalistic integrity, i.e. Confidence that they report with factual basis that can be independently confirmed.  I couldn't find the specific assertions you made about the paid protesters on even Fox News when I looked earlier.     

 

Ser scot-

was there a particular reason to believe that people identifying as independents were especially high in those three states, and particularly that they turned out to vote for trump?   

[Lord Flashheart]

3 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Bias in sources isn't the issue.  It's about looking to sources that report with journalistic integrity, i.e. Confidence that they report with factual basis that can be independently confirmed.  I couldn't find the specific assertions you made about the paid protesters on even Fox News when I looked earlier.   

credible source found.

http://www.infowars.com/trump-campaign-manager-democrats-need-to-tell-paid-violent-protesters-to-stop/

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Bias in sources isn't the issue.  It's about looking to sources that report with journalistic integrity, i.e. Confidence that they report with factual basis that can be independently confirmed.  I couldn't find the specific assertions you made about the paid protesters on even Fox News when I looked earlier.     

 

Ser scot-

was there a particular reason to believe that people identifying as independents were especially high in those three states, and particularly that they turned out to vote for trump?   

Butterbumps,

I don't know.  But I can't believe that those three states going Republican for the first time in 32 years for Wisconsin and Michigan, and the first time in 28 years for Pennsylvania was accomplished with only partisan Republicans supporting Trump.

[Ice Queen]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'd suggest though that there is a sort of "conservative elitism" that has racial, gender, and economic components.

For some reason, that never gets complained about.

And it seems to me that many college educated center lefties or lefties are actually trying to check the elitist bullshit of rich conservative guys when they say stuff like, oh I don't know, "if you give us more money, you'll be better off!"

It's more than that, though.

Can someone please explain to me why we tell people who are welfare to get up off their lazy butts and get a job...but when it's working class conservatives, we say, "Oh, don't worry, you're entitled to a good job and we'll bring them to you"? 

That's right, working class conservatives are the epitome of the entitlement mentality. They don't even seem to understand that it's the conservative economic policies of the last 40 years that have put them in the predicament they're in. They just lap it up. 

I don't think I'm better than anyone else because I have an education. But it's hard to find common ground with those who care only about God and money. There's more to the world than that. 

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, DaveSumm said:

Not particularly relevant, but I've heard the joke that they call it the World Series when no one else plays it for years and years .....it was only when I was in the US in July that a friendly bartender explained to me that both the Series and the Square were named after the newspaper the World Times, and for some reason one word got dropped from one and the other from the other. Possibly common knowledge over there? Not sure.

Classic example of the truth being an annoying hinderance to an opportunity to deride another nation and getting quietly forgotten.

That's an apologist myth Americans believe to ignore their exceptionalism. 

Well, the usual one is the New York World, but the series was never named after the newspaper, which had nothing more to do with MLB than any other paper. I believed the myth too until I took the history of sports as a seminar course and the prof debunked it. It was called the World Series because, well, ______, Fuck Yeah! 

http://www.snopes.com/business/names/worldseries.asp

 

I think that the counter-ego myth that developed is actually more illustrative than the title itself, personally. The first is just arrogance, the second is denial of fact to avoid owning the arrogance, and that's a lot more danerous.