U.S. Politics: "Trump Is Dumber Than A Bag Of Hair"

[ding-fries-are-done]

8 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

I'm not sure why you want to insult your own intelligence with this last statement but please don't insult ours. The GOP have barely managed the 4-0 that should have been surefire victories. Every election has shown a clear movement to the left. Everyone knows this, everyone can see the numbers and deduce what it will mean in the long run when Dems overperform like this. Even the GOP lawmakers who are in trouble next year understand the simple math involved, so I wonder why you choose not to.

If every election has shown a clear movement to the left then why didn't the left win said elections???

[all swedes are racist]

20 minutes ago, ding-fries-are-done said:

If every election has shown a clear movement to the left then why didn't the left win said elections???

well, i mean, theres not like some perfectly balanced lratio of r:d distributed evenly across every district? like, duh?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

24 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The US political system is cyclical. People were saying more or less the same thing about the Republicans after their colossal defeat in 2008, but it only took them 2 years to win back the House, 6 years to win back the Senate and 8 years to regain the Presidency. The Democrats will almost certainly be back within the same time frame or perhaps even sooner -- especially if the Republicans fail to get anything notable done (as they have so far).

 

18 minutes ago, ding-fries-are-done said:

If every election has shown a clear movement to the left then why didn't the left win said elections???

The answer to both of these is related.  We have a federal system where the President is elected not by popular vote, but rather the electoral college.  The electoral college gives disproportionate voting power in Presidential elections to rural, small state voters.  It is what it is.

Relatedly, while political gerrymandering has been going on since forever, and both parties have indulged, during the latest round of redistricting in 2010, the Republicans, who at that time controlled state houses in a lot of places, were able to redraw electoral district maps in ways that will make it quite difficult for Democrats to win in their states for some period of time (true story).  The way that the districts were drawn was much more sophisticated than gerrymandering efforts in the past, using computer modeling and voter behavior data.  There is actually a case on this going to the Supreme Court (re Wisconsin) and it will be interesting to see what will happen.  I am not as sanguine that things will turn around quickly for Democrats.  By ignoring state and local government in several places, they have allowed themselves to be put in a position where, even if they have a majority on an aggregate basis of voters in a particular state, the districts have been drawn in such a way that such voters' votes have been diluted/concentrated in a way that may keep them out of power for a generation.

[Week]

23 minutes ago, ding-fries-are-done said:

If every election has shown a clear movement to the left then why didn't the left win said elections???

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/21/15842084/democrat-special-election-margin-charts

Not that you were actually looking for a thoughtful response.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

And while more moderate and swingy voters may want "bipartisanship," they are also less likely to hold that view of "Democrats=grown-ups" and less likely to be politically informed, and therefore more likely to turn on the incumbent if things are bad in their view.

While it's true moderates tend to be less informed, it should also be noted the less informed (and moderates, obviously) tend to base their vote much more on the economy, which is fairly removed from the GOP's failure to change health care.

1 hour ago, Fez said:

I'd say its the exact opposite. Incumbent Democrats almost never face competitive primaries, whereas incumbent Republicans do quite regularly.

Not sure that was what @Tywin et al. was saying, but this is certainly true.  If the GOP doesn't change Obamacare, they will almost certainly encounter many primary challenges next year.  I'd argue the number of members to have serious challenges may even eclipse 2010.

In terms of what Tywin was saying, I think he may be right in that Democratic voters tend to apply responsibility attribution to their own party more than Republican voters.  Meaning they "excuse away" poor performance when their party controls government less, which would be quite relevant to the conversation.  I can't remember the citation right now, but I'm almost positive there's at least a couple studies demonstrating this.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

46 minutes ago, Fez said:

Really? I'd say its the exact opposite. Incumbent Democrats almost never face competitive primaries, whereas incumbent Republicans do quite regularly.

True, but if you look at a lot of other areas I'd say my comment is correct. Take sex scandals as an example, or more recently, 2016....

[OldGimletEye]

On 7/7/2017 at 11:59 AM, Fez said:

but right-leaning folks would say Democrats are naive, children and Republicans are the grown-ups who actually understand the world.

They are usually old white guys that stroke their chins and sagely say, “um yes Carter, inflation” and say stuff like, “back when I was younger, I was a liberal. But as I got older I turned conservative [ because they finally saw how the real world worked allegedly. Though in reality, they typically don’t know what in the hell they are talking about.].” They also say stuff like “supply creates it’s own demand”. And think Dubya was a military genius.

On 7/7/2017 at 0:33 PM, Mlle. Zabzie said:

By ignoring state and local government in several places, they have allowed themselves to be put in a position where, even if they have a majority on an aggregate basis of voters in a particular state, the districts have been drawn in such a way that such voters' votes have been diluted/concentrated in a way that may keep them out of power for a generation.

The Democratic Party has really blown it in this area badly, I think. One for the reason you state. Two because as we know an enormous amount of damage can be done at the local level. And three, it seems to me, that’s were you get your farm team from. And the farm team, it seems to me, sucks right about now.

[Fez]

13 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

While it's true moderates tend to be less likely to be less informed, it should also be noted the less informed (and moderates, obviously) tend to base their vote much more on the economy, which is fairly removed from the GOP's failure to change health care.

Right, and I'm not talking only about health care (and I think the GOP does pass something it will hurt them a lot more than failing to pass something; unless they delay literally every aspect of it until after the election). The economy is very important, but its not the only factor either. Voters will look at everything they care about and determine whether to punish the incumbent party by voting for the other side or staying home.

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

True, but if you look at a lot of other areas I'd say my comment is correct. Take sex scandals as an example, or more recently, 2016....

Not sure what you mean then. Almost no elected Democrats lost their races in 2016, either their primaries or the general election. And when they do lose their races, as many elected Democrats did in 2014 and as Clinton did in 2016, its usually because they lost moderates to Republicans. 

Democrats have lost races because too much of their base stayed home, like what happened in 2010. But that's just the flipside of 2006, when Republicans lost because too much of their base stayed home (and because Democrats ran a ton of moderate, military veterans that could flip just enough Republican voters). 

And because Republican voters are far more likely to primary their officials, I'll say again that their base is far harder to please.

[DMC]

Just now, Fez said:

Right, and I'm not talking only about health care (and I think the GOP does pass something it will hurt them a lot more than failing to pass something; unless they delay literally every aspect of it until after the election). The economy is very important, but its not the only factor either. Voters will look at everything they care about and determine whether to punish the incumbent party by voting for the other side or staying home.

I agree that if the GOP does pass something like their current bill health care will have a larger effect on the election, especially among moderates, and not in a good way.  And if they don't pass a bill, they're much more likely to be primaried.  Nobody knew governing was this hard!

[OldGimletEye]

On 7/7/2017 at 11:27 AM, mormont said:

I'm an outsider, of course. But it's been my impression, over the last 20 years or so, that this is not true. There appears to be a default expectation on the Democrats to be the grown-up in the room: to behave better, to compromise more, to use calmer rhetoric.

I think the issue here might be about incentives. If you are a wealthy conservative, you probably don’t want the government to work very well. If government doesn’t work, you probably figure your taxes will be lower and you’ll have less regulation.

If you’re a liberal, you believe that government can do useful stuff. You have an interest in making it work.

It puts Democrats in a tougher spot.

I believe they are going to have to figure out a way to start playing more hardball. But, it’s probably going to be more tricky, than say it will be for Republicans

[Mlle. Zabzie]

8 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think the issue here might be about incentives. If you are a wealthy conservative, you probably don’t want the government to work very well. If government doesn’t work, you probably figure your taxes will be lower and you’ll have less regulation.

If you’re a liberal, you believe that government can do useful stuff. You have an interest in making it work.

It puts Democrats in a tougher spot.

I believe they are going to have to figure out a way to start playing more hardball. But, it’s probably going to be more tricky, than say it will be for Republicans

I daresay part of the problem is that many peoples' first-hand experience with government in their lives is profoundly negative (whether DMV, cops, taxing authority, whatever).  Even though there are plenty of indirect positive experiences (including use of roads, maybe schools, etc.), they don't overcome the impact of the bad experience.

[OldGimletEye]

On 7/7/2017 at 1:30 PM, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I daresay part of the problem is that many peoples' first-hand experience with government in their lives is profoundly negative (whether DMV, cops, taxing authority, whatever).  Even though there are plenty of indirect positive experiences (including use of roads, maybe schools, etc.), they don't overcome the impact of the bad experience.

You know, when I was but a young lad, I had a bit of a run in with the law. It wasn’t a pleasant experience.

But, from that, I don’t conclude: Let’s get rid of the police.

If I had my druthers, I wouldn’t pay any taxes at all. But, then I understand those roads I drive on, that public school I went to, that GI bill I got, didn’t come from libertarian fairy dust.

If a person let’s a few bad experiences form their views about what government does, without seeing the bigger picture, then really that’s on them. Sounds to me like the case of the Post Modernist Conservative.

But, yeah, it may be part of the problem as you suggest, if people think that way and don't see the bigger picture.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

20 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

LOL. Yes, I can really see how conservatives allow diversity in thought, with them always saying who and who isn't a "true conservative".

And what conservatives would call a "pinko" many would call part of the reality based community.

I've called myself a "Classical Liberal" for a long time.

[KingintheNorth4]

2 hours ago, The Wedge said:

As a neighbor of mine suggested, they could probably make up that shortfall and balance the budget by making fireworks legal and taxing the hell out of them.  Even though pyrotechnics beyond sparklers are illegal, the whole state sounded like a war zone this past weekend.  It was the sound of tax money being gathered by laughing Hoosiers and the multitude of fireworks stands just across the border.

Celebrating our nation with loud noises, missing fingers, and scared dogs should at least provide some tax revenue, right?

 

That, and legalizing, regulating, and taxing recreational marijuana. 

[OldGimletEye]

On 7/7/2017 at 1:54 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I've called myself a "Classical Liberal" for a long time.

I say I have one foot in the Garden of Eden of classic liberalism. But, only one foot. In short a social liberal, though, certain sorts of people, I'd imagine, would say that's the same as being a communist. Oh well, not that I care to explain to some people as it's hopeless.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

My apologies @Fez, I should have been more clear. When I referenced 2016 I was specifically talking about Clinton and Trump. I've seen a few different surveys and polls that indicate that Democratic primary voters who didn't support Clinton were less likely to vote for the nominee in the General than Republican primary voters who didn't support Trump. 

[denstorebog]

2 hours ago, ding-fries-are-done said:

If every election has shown a clear movement to the left then why didn't the left win said elections???

This ... cannot be a serious comment.

I mean, you're literally (as in, completely correct usage of 'literally', not the Tumblr usage) asking me how it's possible to add a positive number to a negative number without getting a sum above 0.

I'm going to assume that this is your first experience with a US election cycle (no offense intended, mine was back in 2004 and I knew squat about the system back then) and explain it like this:

- Each district has a history of voting D or R. We know what this history looks like.
- Each special House election so far has (by random misfortune for the Democrats) been in districts that favored or heavily favored Republicans.
- In each election Democrats, while not getting above 50% of the votes, have immensely overperformed according to the voting history for that district.
- If you assume that Democrats overperform like this on average in all districts in the 2018 elections, they're in for a massive power grab down the line. (If I remember correctly, Dems would need something like 28 House pickups to gain majority, and would pick up between 70 and 80 seats if you applied this overperformance on average. There are some factors that make it inadvisable to compare special elections to the November 2018 ones, but looking at the difference between 28 and 70, you get my drift about why the 5-0 mantra is ignorant and why GOP reps need to get their shit in order.)

[The Wedge]

11 minutes ago, KingintheNorth4 said:

That, and legalizing, regulating, and taxing recreational marijuana. 

Medical marijuana is already here in Illinois, though it's tightly controlled.  There are proposals in Springfield to legalize recreational use. It'll happen at some point, but just how long it will take to get there is another question.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 minutes ago, The Wedge said:

Medical marijuana is already here in Illinois, though it's tightly controlled.  There are proposals in Springfield to legalize recreational use. It'll happen at some point, but just how long it will take to get there is another question.

As long as people can't smoke in bars and restaurants, I don't care what they smoke.

 

[The Wedge]

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

As long as people can't smoke in bars and restaurants, I don't care what they smoke.

 

Oh, that's been outlawed in Illinois for well over a decade. It's a joy to not smell like an ashtray after having a meal.