US politics: Heil to the Chief :(

[Castel]

8 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Well that's a dangerous attitude for Democrats wanting to retake the White House in 2020. The 2000 election was lost by an even narrower margin, but that didn't lead to victory in 2004.

 

It's not like any alternative path (including overreactions) are risk-free either. 

[Durckad]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And if we were solely focusing on that, you'd have a point. Really, the margin was so absurdly close that you could focus on anything and that would be the 'sole' reason. Comey's last-hour email revisitation, the ACA's premium hike, her being a woman, her not going to Wisconsin, her doing ad buys in Arizona, the voter suppression in Wisconsin, polls making people think she had it in the bag - any of those flip the other way and she likely wins. 

I don't really think there was much of a sole reason for Hillary's loss, other than maybe Republican voters would end up turning out for whatever vitriolic assclown was running while Democrats are notoriously fickle. Maybe they would've turned out turned out if Hillary had been a man, but I just don't think that would've been the case.

Quote

I have always said she wasn't that charismatic as a reality show host that is the POTUS candidacy, and that still rings true - but there's so much evidence that misogyny played a part in this election, that ignoring that and thinking that another woman candidate will be 'fine' ignores a very harsh truth, which is that it is likely white old people are not going to vote for a woman for President. 

Here's way we disagree, I just don't see it as being a major contributor to her loss, but more as 'another factor amongst many.' The republicans were going to tar and feather whomever ran against them, they just had 30 years to focus their fire in this case.

Quote

That the next candidates might suck or be too old is another problem (the Dems now have basically no one with Gabbard defecting and she wasn't that good to begin with) save Michelle Obama, and she's not going to run. 

If there's one thing to be said about the Republicans, it's that always seem to have a rather deep pool of candidates to draw from every election cycle even though the pool is a bit diluted by all the inbred eels swimming about inside of it.

6 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

What would be a good way for the media to counter Trump?  He's pretty much has things up so that his base will probably never accept or acknowledge accurate coverage, and anything reported is waved away as dirty liberal media.  Does that just mean there's nothing to be done?  The media can't win?  We can't win?  I mean, it would be great if they reported on relevant stuff.  Ivanka sitting in on a meeting with Abe instead of something Trump wrote on Twitter, for starters.  Would it be a good enough counter if they dropped the dumb clickbait shit?

I have no idea honestly. His base has had the idea hammered into their skulls over and over again that the media is biased so likely they won't believe much of anything that comes out against him until the economy starts going south, the debt climbing, or other bad things start happening. Even then, they'll probably just blame Obama (somehow).

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Durckad said:

I don't really think there was much of a sole reason for Hillary's loss, other than maybe Republican voters would end up turning out for whatever vitriolic assclown was running while Democrats are notoriously fickle. Maybe they would've turned out turned out if Hillary had been a man, but I just don't think that would've been the case.

I think it's more that Democrats didn't turn out and Republicans did because (partly) that she was a woman. 

2 minutes ago, Durckad said:

Here's way we disagree, I just don't see it as being a major contributor to her loss, but more as 'another factor amongst many.' The republicans were going to tar and feather whomever ran against them, they just had 30 years to focus their fire in this case.

Sure, that's true. Again, I think it's a factor to consider. If you want your 'best case', you get someone charismatic, young, and male. Preferably with almost no actual congressional experience. 

2 minutes ago, Durckad said:

If there's one thing to be said about the Republicans, it's that always seem to have a rather deep pool of candidates to draw from every election cycle even though the pool is a bit diluted by all the inbred eels swimming about inside of it.

And this gets back to the problem that the Democrats DO have - which is that their state and local campaigns have been complete shit. They have to start working more on this, and now. 

2 minutes ago, Durckad said:

I have no idea honestly. His base has had the idea hammered into their skulls over and over again that the media is biased so likely they won't believe much of anything that comes out against him until the economy starts going south, the debt climbing, or other bad things start happening. Even then, they'll probably just blame Obama (somehow).

The best way for this to work is to show a few things:

• Show that Trump is corrupt. Authoritarians making bank and fucking over people is one of the best ways to make their base turn on them. 
• Show that Trump is lying about his beliefs. If you can simply make him into yet another politician with failed promises and drives, you can really fuck up his base. Him already turning on campaign promises before even elected is a good sign here; keep hammering him on that, and Fox and Breitbart and the like will turn on him hard. 
• Don't get too complex. Alt-right == literal nazis is a great start. That video should be played over and over again, and the relationship between Bannon and Spencer should be highlighted over and over again. The whole conflict of interest thing is totally horrible and interesting, and is super confusing to most people who probably dont' even understand why it might  be bad. As soon as you start saying "The Emolument clause" you're hosed. Don't do that. 
• Show Trump is a criminal. Literally. People don't care if random folks are saying 'this person is a crook' but actual impeachment charges and actual crimes are a big deal. The Trump Foundation indicating that they broke the law is a GREAT example of this.

[The Anti-Targ]

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

I don't think people disliked her because she was a woman. I think they disliked her because she was a Clinton. They HATED her because she was a woman. And they were happy to pour on abuse because of it too. And it's not just Republicans - the primary was pretty nasty as well from Sanders supporters at times. 

 

I think you have that backwards, since it implies any woman would be the focus of exactly the same hate, which I don't think is the case. The hate gradient goes, from lowest to highest: woman-->Democrat-->Clinton. Which means any Republican woman only suffers from the lowest of the foci of hate, and thus is less subject to hateful ire. But still, it makes the chances of a woman nominee coming from the Republican party very low for the forseeable future, since Republican men suffer from none of the foci of hate.

 

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

I do think that the Democratic party has to figure out a much stronger strategy for all 50 states, and start working much better at local and state election levels as well as trying to take more governorships. 

 

Sure, and that plays into really the only other key that can be directly addressed by the Democrats, which is to take House seats off the Republicans in the mid-terms. But it's only 2 years away and how much can be done in 2 years.

Also on the military angle, assuming the keys are right as a predictive tool - which they have been so far - the fact of a major war does not in itself favour the incumbent. It is whether the populace perceives the incumbent [party] as being successful in prosecuting the war. In 2004 Bush was still the public darling on his wars because not enough time had passed to show that Iraq, at least, was folly and was becoming an expensive quagmire. And people didn't want to believe they were sold the war based on lies. Colin Powell would never lie, surely! If Trump gets you into a conflict because he wants to stop some wind farms being built off the coast of his golf club, and it ends up being seen to be an ongoing costly mess then a current military conflict will work against him. And that's essentially one of the reasons Obama won in 2008. By the time 2008 rolled around people had wised up on Iraq, Obama could laud the fact that he opposed invading Iraq from the get go and the perception that on balance Iraq was a military failure meant exactly the same conflict had a reverse influence after the passage of 4 years. Probably the same way Viet Nam worked in Jimmy Carter's favour in '76.

[Impmk2]

I think it was such a close election, just a percentage point in a few key states, it's reasonable to point at any number of factors as decisive in the election. The resurfacing of the emails in the last couple weeks, corruption perceived or real and the mud slung over the years, charisma, and yes sexism all played a role. And any one of those could've easily swung it.

[The Anti-Targ]

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think it's more that Democrats didn't turn out and Republicans did because (partly) that she was a woman. 

Sure, that's true. Again, I think it's a factor to consider. If you want your 'best case', you get someone charismatic, young, and male. Preferably with almost no actual congressional experience. 

I think it's hard to blame sexism for her loss partly because she still won the NPV. So if sexism is to blame in any significant manner it's because of a very localised concentration of sexism which caused her to lose 3 "shoulda won" key states. But in the final analysis (or at least Michael Moore's analysis) the "working class" states she lost around the great lakes was because Trump promised jobs (that will probably never happen) and Hillary said, "look folks coal is on the way out" which actually needs to happen.

Sexism in Texas, Utah and Wyoming played no part in her loss. And sexism in California, New York and Virginia didn't stop her from winning those states.

There's also the assumption that sexist people won't vote for a woman. I don't think that's true. I think if your garden variety sexist, who is generally sympathetic to her party, thinks "yeah, she's all right, for a woman" they'll be willing to vote for her. There were anecdotes of people coming out and directly saying they would never vote for a woman to be president. But I think that number, who are generally inclined to vote Democratic, is pretty low. Or am I being too charitable towards the people of the USA?

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I also think that she barely, barely lost the electoral college, and you don't need to do a massive retrofit to change things here.

I disagree. First, Al Gore barely, barely lost the electoral college. Clinton lost it in a way where no single state contested could turn the tide for her. Trump could lose Michigan and either Pennsylvania or Wisconsin (though not both) and still win.

Second, Clinton lost to Donald J. Trump: the one and only President-elect in the history of the country to never have held a political or a military position in his life. The thrice married man who cheated on his wife. Who had active lawsuits against him and had offended well over half of the electorate (and not just according to the politically correct definition of what is offensive, but according to the definition of practically every culture ever). The glee of the Democrats when he was nominated looks silly now, but it was quite rational at the time.

Third, the Democrats didn't just lose the Presidency. RealClearPolitics took a look at the other political positions in our country and concluded that the Democrats have not been this badly off since just before the Great Depression. As the article points out, this can change quickly (if Trump fails to deliver, the Republicans will do badly in 2018), but right now, the party is not in good shape and, given that her allies were effectively running the party, Clinton bears significant responsibility for that.

[Jaxom 1974]

45 minutes ago, Durckad said:

 

If there's one thing to be said about the Republicans, it's that always seem to have a rather deep pool of candidates to draw from every election cycle even though the pool is a bit diluted by all the inbred eels swimming about inside of it.

I have no idea honestly. His base has had the idea hammered into their skulls over and over again that the media is biased so likely they won't believe much of anything that comes out against him until the economy starts going south, the debt climbing, or other bad things start happening. Even then, they'll probably just blame Obama (somehow).

Do they? The Republican base just repudiated some of their brightest stars in Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich in favor of a money grabbing waffler.  Their likes won't be able to placate a base that wanted Trump going forward.  

And the media really just needs to continually following up.  Be brave enough to not cut the interview short to go to commercial if it means a couple extra moments and questions.  They so need to realize that even though competition is healthy, they're going to need to support each other with follow ups and expanded reporting.  It can't just be about the scoop any longer.

[Durckad]

52 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think it's more that Democrats didn't turn out and Republicans did because (partly) that she was a woman. 

Sure, that's true. Again, I think it's a factor to consider. If you want your 'best case', you get someone charismatic, young, and male. Preferably with almost no actual congressional experience. 

As much as I would like to be able to boil down Trump's win to a simple answer. Actually, no, I wouldn't. It would be stupendously depressing if the only reason Trump won was because some people just couldn't deal with a woman being in charge.

Quote

The best way for this to work is to show a few things:

• Show that Trump is corrupt. Authoritarians making bank and fucking over people is one of the best ways to make their base turn on them. 
• Show that Trump is lying about his beliefs. If you can simply make him into yet another politician with failed promises and drives, you can really fuck up his base. Him already turning on campaign promises before even elected is a good sign here; keep hammering him on that, and Fox and Breitbart and the like will turn on him hard. 
• Don't get too complex. Alt-right == literal nazis is a great start. That video should be played over and over again, and the relationship between Bannon and Spencer should be highlighted over and over again. The whole conflict of interest thing is totally horrible and interesting, and is super confusing to most people who probably dont' even understand why it might  be bad. As soon as you start saying "The Emolument clause" you're hosed. Don't do that. 
• Show Trump is a criminal. Literally. People don't care if random folks are saying 'this person is a crook' but actual impeachment charges and actual crimes are a big deal. The Trump Foundation indicating that they broke the law is a GREAT example of this.

I would hope that would work but considering just how much stuff his supporters have been able to ignore or write off, I am not filled with confidence by such a strategy.

9 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Do they? The Republican base just repudiated some of their brightest stars in Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich in favor of a money grabbing waffler.  Their likes won't be able to placate a base that wanted Trump going forward.  

Well, they have certainly been more able to field a larger array of clowns candidates than the Democrats have been able to. There were how many Republican hopefuls at the start of the primary: Fiorina, Rubio, Walker, Cruz, Trump, Bush, Jindal, Christie, Kasich, Carson, Huckabee, Graham? Did I miss any? Regardless of who they eventually chose, Republican voters certainly had quite a few choices to pick from.

Quote

And the media really just needs to continually following up.  Be brave enough to not cut the interview short to go to commercial if it means a couple extra moments and questions.  They so need to realize that even though competition is healthy, they're going to need to support each other with follow ups and expanded reporting.  It can't just be about the scoop any longer.

Like I said above, I'm not sure I have much faith that this will faze the typical Trump supporter. I think it would take an actual economic downturn before anything sinks in and even then...

[Ormond]

30 minutes ago, Durckad said:

 

I would hope that would work but considering just how much stuff his supporters have been able to ignore or write off, I am not filled with confidence by such a strategy.

 

Regardless of what strategy would work best, it doesn't seem to me to be completely rational to be against any particular strategy just because it won't have influence on his "core supporters." There were lots of people who voted for Trump who are NOT "core" supporters. One reason the polling was flawed was because people who decided who to vote for in the last week before the election swung strongly to Trump. I really don't think that people who made up their minds at that late point were in any way part of the "core" but instead were people conflicted between two candidates both of whom they strongly disliked. To win in 2020, the Democrats don't have to change the minds of the true Trumpites; they just have to change the minds of some of those last minute deciders AND motivate more of their own base to actually get out and vote. 

If focusing on Trump's scandals and other bad points makes even 5% of those who voted for him feel ashamed or duped about that, it might be enough. 

[Stannis is the man....nis]

I think in the end what Hillary and the dems did wrong is they spent so much time crapping on Donald and letting him hang himself that they never sold a reason to vote for them it was more "vote for me because my opponent is a moron who might start WW3 over a tweet" than "vote for me because I will make your life better". Which they kinda have an advantage in 2020 seeing as Trump in power you have to outline the vision going forward  
 

[Durckad]

6 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Regardless of what strategy would work best, it doesn't seem to me to be completely rational to be against any particular strategy just because it won't have influence on his "core supporters." There were lots of people who voted for Trump who are NOT "core" supporters. One reason the polling was flawed was because people who decided who to vote for in the last week before the election swung strongly to Trump. I really don't think that people who made up their minds at that late point were in any way part of the "core" but instead were people conflicted between two candidates both of whom they strongly disliked. To win in 2020, the Democrats don't have to change the minds of the true Trumpites; they just have to change the minds of some of those last minute deciders AND motivate more of their own base to actually get out and vote. 

If focusing on Trump's scandals and other bad points makes even 5% of those who voted for him feel ashamed or duped about that, it might be enough. 

I'm not against it, I'm just musing whether it would end up having any effect. To put it bluntly, I'm being an unhelpful, cynical defeatist.

But yes, you are correct.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I think you have that backwards, since it implies any woman would be the focus of exactly the same hate, which I don't think is the case. The hate gradient goes, from lowest to highest: woman-->Democrat-->Clinton. Which means any Republican woman only suffers from the lowest of the foci of hate, and thus is less subject to hateful ire. But still, it makes the chances of a woman nominee coming from the Republican party very low for the forseeable future, since Republican men suffer from none of the foci of hate.

It also means that Republican women can only go so far, and only be in a very specific type of role - the hot, rah rah kind. Thatcher would never work as a Republican woman. 

And note that I don't think it's particularly a Republican thing - maybe that's the disconnect. I think that sexism is pervasive on both sides quite heavily. I saw Sanders fans happily calling Clinton a cunt and wishing she was raped to death. It is better on the left, but not particularly good. 

Quote

 

I disagree. First, Al Gore barely, barely lost the electoral college. Clinton lost it in a way where no single state contested could turn the tide for her. Trump could lose Michigan and either Pennsylvania or Wisconsin (though not both) and still win.

Second, Clinton lost to Donald J. Trump: the one and only President-elect in the history of the country to never have held a political or a military position in his life. The thrice married man who cheated on his wife. Who had active lawsuits against him and had offended well over half of the electorate (and not just according to the politically correct definition of what is offensive, but according to the definition of practically every culture ever). The glee of the Democrats when he was nominated looks silly now, but it was quite rational at the time.

Third, the Democrats didn't just lose the Presidency. RealClearPolitics took a look at the other political positions in our country and concluded that the Democrats have not been this badly off since just before the Great Depression. As the article points out, this can change quickly (if Trump fails to deliver, the Republicans will do badly in 2018), but right now, the party is not in good shape and, given that her allies were effectively running the party, Clinton bears significant responsibility for that.

 

On the first point - Gore isn't Clinton and Bush is definitely not Trump. The election was still incredibly close. Not as close as Bush and Gore, but incredibly close. 

Clinton did lose to Trump, who is one of the worst candidates ever. Who do you think is going to be running in 2020? Do you think Trump is going to magically be better in 4 years? Now, I do think this means that the Democrats can't rest on their laurels entirely, but the first priority is simply beat Trump. That should be the most important, pressing goal. And to do that does not require a massive sea change in strategy. 

The Democrats did not just lose the presidency, but they did not have a particularly great shot of gaining anything else this election. They're in a bad position, that's absolutely the case - but they gained both house and senate seats, they gained state legislative votes and they had a lot of big wins in ballot measures across the board. There is no real obvious way that Democrats were going to make particularly big gains this election (or in 2018 either) no matter what. And while Clinton's allies were running it, they were appointed by Obama, not Clinton. DWS isn't a Clinton appointee, she's an Obama stalwart and has been there since Dean stopped. 

Again, I think Democrats need to change their state strategy. That does not mean they need to significantly alter their POTUS strategy, especially given that Trump will still be there in 4 years.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But I think that number, who are generally inclined to vote Democratic, is pretty low. Or am I being too charitable towards the people of the USA?

I think the US just showed you how charitable you shouldn't be. The US just elected Trump. 

[Kalbear]

And as if on cue, Trump is going to cut NASA's environmental science part, because he doesn't want to fund 'politicized science'.

Quote

 

“We see Nasa in an exploration role, in deep space research,” Walker told the Guardian. “Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.

“My guess is that it would be difficult to stop all ongoing Nasa programs but future programs should definitely be placed with other agencies. I believe that climate research is necessary but it has been heavily politicized, which has undermined a lot of the work that researchers have been doing. Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.”

 

AFHHGHHGh

[Ormond]

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

 they gained state legislative votes

?? According to ballotpedia, the Democrats suffered a net loss of 43 seats in state legislatures. Do you have some analysis that shows this isn't as bad as it sounds?

https://ballotpedia.org/State_legislative_elections,_2016

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Ormond said:

?? According to ballotpedia, the Democrats suffered a net loss of 43 seats in state legislatures. Do you have some analysis that shows this isn't as bad as it sounds?

https://ballotpedia.org/State_legislative_elections,_2016

Apparently I was going off of older data. Sorry about that. They did gain one net partisan control of a legislature despite losing seats, but that's still not what I was referring to. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

And as if on cue, Trump is going to cut NASA's environmental science part, because he doesn't want to fund 'politicized science'.

AFHHGHHGh

I think Trump might turn out great for SpaceX, and hopefully get the bloated, pork filled SLS project canned. If even part of that budget can be channelled to cheaper private sector suppliers like SpaceX instead, we will be in for exciting times.  Spacex will revolutionize the Space Transportation industry. And will get humans on Mars within a decade, if they have the funding. And that funding will still be far cheaper than Nasa's plans to just do a human orbital mission to Mars, without any landing plans in the next two decades.

 

 

[mormont]

Yeah, Donald Trump's going to be great for science in the US.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-meets-with-creationist-jerry-falwell-jr-about-possibly-becoming-next-secretary-of-a7430261.html

Quote

Mr Falwell, an early supporter of the billionaire businessman who declared his backing prior to the Iowa caucus, met with Mr Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence last week at Trump Tower in New York
“I let them know one of my passions is reforming higher education and education in general,” Mr Falwell told the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
“I told them I’d be willing - I have a lot of responsibilities here - but I’d be willing to serve in some capacity that sort of brings education back to some form of sanity.”

 

[SeanF]

16 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Nope. Other way around.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oArjXSYeg40u4qQRR93qveN2N1UELQ6v04_mamrKg9g/edit#gid=0

This spreadsheet has the Republicans ahead in the House elections (albeit, there are still late votes to be counted, and some candidates were returned unopposed, or didn't face major party opposition).