U.S. Politics: 2016 Election Goes To Overtime

[Gorn]

18 minutes ago, mormont said:

The problem here is the assumption that it is the American left that have created this situation. It is not. The American right have for many years utterly refused to contemplate co-operation and have treated the concept of 'middle ground' as treason. Anyone in the Republican party who so much as utters the word 'compromise' gets deselected by their own side.

The discussion has certainly been radicalised, but not by the left.

When things go to hell, saying "they started it" won't help anyone.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Gorn said:

When things go to hell, saying "they started it" won't help anyone.

My thoughts precisely.

[Ice Queen]

11 hours ago, Swordfish said:

I'm not defending Trump here, so i have no idea why you think these tweets are really relevant, but since you brought it up, but I cna't help but point out your obvious double standard here.  Trump sends a couple dumb tweets based on no evidence of fraud.  OUTRAGE!!!  Stein and Clinton attempt to engineer a recount based on very scant evidence of fraud: >PArt fo the process. Should be done anyway. No big deal.'

Apparently the threshold that separates these claims is attaching a number to it? Totally fine to allude to fraud based on scant evidence, provided it doesn't come with a vote total?  Is that the idea?

There doesn't need to be any evidence of fraud for a candidate to ask for a recount. None, zip, nada.

But let's not confuse election fraud with voter fraud. They're not the same thing. 

[Jo498]

The "no compromise" policy in national policy might have been the fault of the right.

The focus on "identity politics" (instead of equality) without becoming aware of the dangers of "balkanization" and "victimhood" cultures was done by the "left". Scare quotes because one reason why they failed in the last decades is that they departed from the "materialist"/economic positions of the old left and replaced it with postmodernism and identity politics.

[Ice Queen]

2 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

The "no compromise" policy in national policy might have been the fault of the right.

The focus on "identity politics" (instead of equality) without becoming aware of the dangers of "balkanization" and "victimhood" cultures was done by the "left". Scare quotes because one reason why they failed in the last decades is that they departed from the "materialist"/economic positions of the old left and replaced it with postmodernism and identity politics.

What should we engage in, then? Political nationalism? 

Identity politics is another word for civil rights. I'm so sorry you hate it so much. But then, many Republicans engage in the purest form of identity politics in this country: white supremacy. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

The "no compromise" policy in national policy might have been the fault of the right.

The focus on "identity politics" (instead of equality) without becoming aware of the dangers of "balkanization" and "victimhood" cultures was done by the "left". Scare quotes because one reason why they failed in the last decades is that they departed from the "materialist"/economic positions of the old left and replaced it with postmodernism and identity politics.

Jo,

Interesting.  Are "Identity Politics" a result of "postmodern" philosophy?  I do think they seem to reject the individualism that has, for most recent history been central to Western political philosophy.

In The Rule of the Clan author Mark Weiner criticizes libertarians for failing to recognize that a strong State is a pre-requisite for protection of individual liberties.  That said he goes on to criticize the left for rejecting individualism and embracing "clannish" ideas like collective justice.

[mormont]

16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If the discussion is radicalized does who radicalized it really matter?  Is it not important to get all parties to back off radicalized rhetoric?

This is not a 'past tense' situation. The right are continuing to radicalise the situation, while blaming it on the left. The right demand that the left compromise, while treating any suggestion that they should do the same with anger and contempt. Every compromise by the left is greeted with demands that they should go further, or ideally just give in altogether. Surrender is not a compromise. But it's the only thing the American right want from the left, at present.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

This is not a 'past tense' situation. The right are continuing to radicalise the situation, while blaming it on the left. The right demand that the left compromise, while treating any suggestion that they should do the same with anger and contempt. Every compromise by the left is greeted with demands that they should go further, or ideally just give in altogether. Surrender is not a compromise. But it's the only thing the American right want from the left, at present.

I'm not suggesting surrender.  I'm suggesting responding in kind, "they should just die" for example, just makes the situation worse.

[Castel]

34 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If the discussion is radicalized does who radicalized it really matter?  Is it not important to get all parties to back off radicalized rhetoric?

It does, unless you're operating under the assumption that you're dealing with something closer to a child on one side; that there's no capacity for responsibility from them and you just have to deal with things alone. 

Frankly, a lot of these flowery and nice entreaties for dialogue seem to implicitly carry the idea that the Right will be the Right and you simply have to be the adult in the room. Which, to me, is inherently self-defeating to the idea, from both sides.

[Commodore]

42 minutes ago, mormont said:

 Anyone in the Republican party who so much as utters the word 'compromise' gets deselected by their own side.

Accepting the premise, why was this posture so successful electorally? 

[Castel]

2 minutes ago, Commodore said:

Accepting the premise, why was this posture so successful electorally? 

One possible reason ? Geographic advantages (or gerrymandering but this is a whole discussion)  and turnout in off-years means that many more Republicans have to contend with attacks from the right than from the left. More incentive to prove your conservative bona fides under a Democratic president,especially when the public is being told by their media that he's going to put in death camps or whatever the fuck that was. 

 

[Gorn]

6 minutes ago, mormont said:

This is not a 'past tense' situation. The right are continuing to radicalise the situation, while blaming it on the left. The right demand that the left compromise, while treating any suggestion that they should do the same with anger and contempt. Every compromise by the left is greeted with demands that they should go further, or ideally just give in altogether. Surrender is not a compromise. But it's the only thing the American right want from the left, at present.

You are talking about the politicians of the right; I am talking about the people who vote for the right because the left ignores them. People who grew up in a racist environment without exposure to different cultures and points of view are dismissed as irredeemable bigots; gun owners who hunt to feed their family and who live half an hour away from the nearest police station are dismissed as gun nuts; people who believe that human life starts at conception are dismissed as misogynists; the list goes on.

When you subtract all those groups with which "no middle ground can be reached", you are left with less than half of voting population, and you lose elections.

[Jo498]

No. It is an important difference in focus. Civil rights are about equality. They stress the common and equal rights *regardless* of a,b,c... "Identity politics" stresses what special needs some "victim" group has and why it needs to be recognized as some special group in the first place. This is obviously close to creating as many different identity groups/perceived grievances so that nobody gets left behind and also only one step away from the white supremacists claiming that everyone else has their special needs identy group, so why not grant them the KKK...?

[Commodore]

The correct response to obstruction (aka separation of powers, aka checks and balances) is to make it politically unprofitable to do so. 

Whining/shaming about it might achieve this effect, if the voters agree the obstruction is harmful/unjustified.

[Yukle]

12 minutes ago, Commodore said:

Accepting the premise, why was this posture so successful electorally? 

Probably due to the overturning of key components of the Voting Rights Act, as well as the fact that Tuesday elections make it hard for low-income people to vote since they can't afford to leave work.

Plus, gerrymandering, which is rife and ridiculous in the USA.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Probably due to the overturning of key components of the Voting Rights Act, as well as the fact that Tuesday elections make it hard for low-income people to vote since they can't afford to leave work.

Plus, gerrymandering, which is rife and ridiculous in the USA.

Just an FYI Gerrymandering is used by both major parties.

[Castel]

21 minutes ago, Gorn said:

You are talking about the politicians of the right; I am talking about the people who vote for the right because the left ignores them. People who grew up in a racist environment without exposure to different cultures and points of view are dismissed as irredeemable bigots; gun owners who hunt to feed their family and who live half an hour away from the nearest police station are dismissed as gun nuts; people who believe that human life starts at conception are dismissed as misogynists; the list goes on.

When you subtract all those groups with which "no middle ground can be reached", you are left with less than half of voting population, and you lose elections.

That is the narrative the politicians on the right are selling, yes.

Take the debate on abortion from the Clinton-Kaine camp. What did you get? "Abortion should be in the hands of the mother" from Clinton and Kaine iirc is more morally ambivalent but stands by the right. 

People will say shit but then, people will always say shit. If you're "abandoned" cause the official ticket is pro-life then...tough shit? Look, the goal of the Democratic party should not be to become the Republican party. They have their constituency and positions too and, while abortion is divisive that goes both ways. It's 50-50. Dem leadership being pro-life is not being abandoned. 

If it's a matter of random assholes talking shit...then yeah, random assholes on the left talk shit, just like the conservative radio talks a whole bunch of shit or the GOP "personalities" had conniptions whenever Obama did something or  how Sandra Fluke was a whore for testifying on birth control for health reasons or some liberal artist said something about...anything. But apparently all of that is a liberal thing. 

This all sounds like a sort of even, hardnosed analysis but it's essentially buying into the GOP talking point which is that, cause liberals care about issues that they don't, they hate people (especially white people). They're very good at selling it.

And your numbers are dubious. There are many reasons the Dems lose elections but it's not necessarily cause they are that much fewer in number. (see this election for that)

[Commodore]

3 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Probably due to the overturning of key components of the Voting Rights Act, as well as the fact that Tuesday elections make it hard for low-income people to vote since they can't afford to leave work.

Plus, gerrymandering, which is rife and ridiculous in the USA.

this is an unwillingness to internalize problems (to at least accept responsibility, if not blame)

Eight years of Obama and the Colbert/Stewart/Oliver bubble convincing the left that their ideas were inherently popular (rather than simply superior).

better candidates, better arguments, and better policies (or better prioritization of those policies) should be considered. I.e. things they can control. 

As a libertarian, I operate from the presumption that my beliefs will never be a majority worldview, certainly not by default. It requires a continuous hard sell effort on all fronts just to even move the ratchet in a limited government/free market direction. 

Not gonna win elections bemoaning racism/sexism/gerrymandering. As I said, look at what Howard Dean and Rahm Emanuel did in 2006 for the blueprint (part of that success was events out of their control, but they did well with what they could). 

[TrackerNeil]

25 minutes ago, Gorn said:

gun owners who hunt to feed their family and who live half an hour away from the nearest police station are dismissed as gun nuts; 

Democratic politicians bend over backwards to reaffirm the Second Amendment; Google this and you'll see. There are no significant forces inside the Democratic Party who are pushing to illegalize private gun ownership, and what you're saying sounds just like right-wing propaganda.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

"Illegalize"?  "Make illegal", "ban", "regulate", "restrict", "impose government controls"... 

"Illegalize"?