US Politics 2016: Delay the Electoral College Vote?

[Commodore]

22 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Commodore,

So, simple lies are better than complex truths?

Better is what achieves the outcome you desire (winning elections).

Trump is at the tip of the political spear, way downstream, he serves the views of his voters, whether they are true or not. It's good that we have a system where politicians succeed in this manner (responsive/beholden to the people).

If lies are more politically profitable than truth, that's a problem with the electorate, not the politician. 

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/353513.php

Quote

No one ever convinces anyone to change his political beliefs. Oh, yeah, it does happen, rarely, on an anecdotal level, but when thinking about politics on the statistical level (where one must think about it), it is safe enough to round down "almost never" to "never, ever" and just say no one ever convinces anyone to change his political beliefs, never, ever.

The task of a candidate is not to change minds. This is all but impossible. Rather, the task is to run on a set of issues such that a majority of people already agree with a candidate, and de-emphasize or even delegitimize that set of issues such that other issues are considered secondary or to not even matter at all (sets of issues upon which the public does not agree with the candidate).

Obama was a master of this latter skill, delegitimizing even the mention of issues upon which the public did not agree with him.

That is how you win. Not by actually changing people's minds, but simply by arguing the issues upon which they already agree with you are paramount and determinative, and the issues on which they disagree with you are minor and not worth discussing much.

Only egotistical fools bull forward with a plan to run on issues -- emphasize issues -- that he knows the voting public disagrees with him on.

A few men have managed to change the hearts and minds of men with the power of their words, their logic, their empathy. Jesus Christ was one of them. There are about thirty other people throughout history beside him who managed to do the same.

The average politician is simply not capable of this feat, and it exposes a politician as a fool of the highest rank to imagine himself so capable.

Politicians win simply by confirming the biases, bigotries, and beliefs of a majority of the voting public, not by shaping men's minds as a sculptor invests clay with form.

A winning politician is often likened to a weather vane. He can also be likened to a mirror. Barack Obama, a narcissistic fool if there ever was one, was nevertheless astute enough to recognize the heart of his appeal, noting that he was but a "blank screen" upon which voters could project their deepest beliefs.

So Jeb Bush's candidacy is essentially a Protest Candidacy. Protest Candidacies are all about "convincing people" of this or that thing they don't already believe. Occasionally they may have some impact, in that they raise the profile of an issue.

But what Protest Candidates do not do is win primaries, and Jeb Bush's Protest Candidacy (apparently protesting conservatism itself, it seems like) will likewise fail to result in an actual nomination.

It will be the most high-profile, most extravagantly funded Protest Candidacy in history, but it will result in a failure, as all Protest Candidacies result in failure.

 

Ace was proven right. 

[Mexal]

28 minutes ago, Commodore said:

The left has their head up their ass pushing stuff like this. They aren't responding to the actual needs/concerns of voters.

Evolution, gun control, transgender bathroom access, global warming. It's so far removed from everyday life. 

Trump keeps it simple; bring back jobs, destroy ISIS, stop illegal immigration, build up the military. The voters may be wrong and his solutions may not work, but he knows what they want and tries to please them (in rhetoric if not action).  

This is why Bernie would have been a better nominee, he recognized some of this at a basic level. 

This doesn't make sense to me. They're not responding to the actual needs/concerns of voters? You constantly frame it like the 62 million voters who voted for Trump are the only voters out there who matter rather than the 65 million voters who voted for Clinton. You act like they don't exist but they do exist and they do care about evolution, gun control, equal rights for all Americans, global warming, etc. Yes, Clinton did a terrible job at providing a progressive economic message like Obama did but lets not act like the only issues that matter is jobs in rural America, destroying ISIS, building up the military and stopping illegal immigration because they very clearly aren't.

[Commodore]

22 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

So evolution and climate change shouldn't taught in the classroom?  

The question is whether this factors into a voter's preference. It doesn't (and in this case, rightfully shouldn't, it's like 1000th on my list of priorities as a voter). 

In fact, if anything, the small number of voters who would vote based on this probably feel strongly against teaching it. 

Stop emphasizing it.

[Mladen]

21 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Politeness isn't my strong suit, so I'm going to be blunt here: I'm not sure how I feel about Kosovo, but what I'm pretty sure of is that I've seen some real bull on the matter by some Serbian ultra nationalist.

And I share the sentiment regarding the ultra nationalists, wherever they are. But, to ethnically clean what is now considered a country, under the NATO/UN supervision, also leaves little for interpretation. I don't escape from the fact that what some members of my people have done is horrendous, but to have no one to be blamed for the exodus 200 000 people and countless murders, killings and atrocities is wrong any given day.

21 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

As far as their being self-centerism in the USA, I don't disagree. But, the most people like to have that, voted for Trump.

I would agree. I don't claim otherwise. Isolationism was a bit part of Trump story. And I don't believe in it. In modern world, we are all connected. But. lines must be drawn very clearly. Especially for powerful countries. One of the reasons why Putin can do the things he has been doing the past several years is because USA played the same game. 

21 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I don't think so.

Well, I believe those that kill civilians for the sake of political, economical or any other gain should be behind bars. I understand others may disagree, but there is no denying that NATO broke quite the number of international laws in 1999. And given various scientific medical and epidemiological researches in Serbia, it seems that bombing has quite the lasting impact on the soil, water and health of the nation. 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 minutes ago, Commodore said:

The question is whether this factors into a voter's preference. It doesn't (and in this case, rightfully shouldn't, it's like 1000th on my list of priorities as a voter). 

In fact, if anything, the small number of voters who would vote based on this probably feel strongly against teaching it. 

Stop emphasizing it.

That wasn't the context.  It was literally a discussion about whether or not academia trended left, and then Inigima mentioned that the curriculum generally doesn't involve the instructors politics, then Merentha said that all instruction is inherently political.  So when you come in and say the left has its head up it's ass on this, and start in on how they need to focus on different issues, it completely pivots away from the discussion.

The question of a voters preference wasnt really the issue, so your entire post I responded to comes across a nonsequitur.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Fun facts about Trump's cabinet picks so far:

• Out of the 22 appointments, only 5 are not white men
• There are only 4 women
• And only 3 minorities
• It's the least educated cabinet in modern times
• It's the wealthiest cabinet ever
• And lastly, it's the least experienced cabinet in modern times
   

[aceluby]

58 minutes ago, Commodore said:

The left has their head up their ass pushing stuff like this. They aren't responding to the actual needs/concerns of voters.

Evolution, gun control, transgender bathroom access, global warming. It's so far removed from everyday life. 

Trump keeps it simple; bring back jobs, destroy ISIS, stop illegal immigration, build up the military. The voters may be wrong and his solutions may not work, but he knows what they want and tries to please them (in rhetoric if not action).  

This is why Bernie would have been a better nominee, he recognized some of this at a basic level. 

These are all issues created by the right, not the left.

The right doesn't want evolution taught as part of science class.

The right doesn't want studies done on gun violence.

The right were the ones that brought up transgendered bathroom issues as soon as gay marriage was settled.

The right is actively denying climate science.

These are also all things that Trump was spouting on the campaign trail.  The right think facts have a liberal bias.

[Sivin]

I actually think Commodore is, in the very broadest sense, on to something. 

I see no need for the Democratic contenders to focus so heavily on things like background checks, abortion, LGBT rights, equal rights for minorities, healthcare, or climate change to the near exclusion of mentioning the rest of their platform. Those are all things that get me to the booth in a heartbeat, but there are few enough Sivin's in the electorate and we just found out that even 65 million is not nearly enough.

But I know all of those things are in the Democratic Party platform, you do not need to keep telling me. Mention all of those things once a debate, please, but as a transgender person who remembers having snow on Christmas and is physically upset by racism I would rather hear my political representative mention my personal needle movers a few times less so that they can focus on their education and infrastructure bills or the magic 'jobs' word if it means actually getting votes.

It sucks that an EC majority of the country doesn't think I am a person enough to vote for my rights. It sucks that they don't consider our dying planet enough of an issue to vote to try and save it. It is a gut punch to think that they will vote against their own Healthcare interests. But that's the way it is. These things do not move the needle enough for the greater part of the EC relevant voters. I would rather see a subtle rebranding of the party's message to reach out to those who can be reached than go down with the ship swinging the racist, sexist, and ignorant haymakers.

But that's just me.

[Dr. Pepper]

That's really sad, tbh.  It's like saying "hey, the right is really stupid and full of crazy so let's just hide away our platform and all we stand for in an effort to appease the little dumb fucks."  

I mean, Hillary constantly mentioned jobs.  She constantly mentioned ISIS.  She constantly mentioned immigration. This suggestion that she didn't is ridiculous.  The problem is that it was discussed in realistic language instead of magical thinking and wasn't cloaked in the bigotry flag Trump used that his white supremacist voters just ate to pieces.  

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said:

That's really sad, tbh.  It's like saying "hey, the right is really stupid and full of crazy so let's just hide away our platform and all we stand for in an effort to appease the little dumb fucks."  

I mean, Hillary constantly mentioned jobs.  She constantly mentioned ISIS.  She constantly mentioned immigration. This suggestion that she didn't is ridiculous.  The problem is that it was discussed in realistic language instead of magical thinking and wasn't cloaked in the bigotry flag Trump used that his white supremacist voters just ate to pieces.  

Problem being that she was part of an establishment that created or at least didn't fix those problems. Why would anyone vote for someone who had put you in the position you are in and expect anything different to happen.

[Sivin]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

That's really sad, tbh.  It's like saying "hey, the right is really stupid and full of crazy so let's just hide away our platform and all we stand for in an effort to appease the little dumb fucks."  

I mean, Hillary constantly mentioned jobs.  She constantly mentioned ISIS.  She constantly mentioned immigration. This suggestion that she didn't is ridiculous.  The problem is that it was discussed in realistic language instead of magical thinking and wasn't cloaked in the bigotry flag Trump used that his white supremacist voters just ate to pieces.  

Oh I know, but she kept telling voters in the debate to hop on her website and do their research. And, to my everlasting horror, the voters couldn't be bothered. I would rather endure the platitudes and patriotic dick stroking than endless defeats and insurmountable odds in the House.

[Sivin]

Oh, and we need a white guy for the Presidential candidate. Or at the very least a ridiculously charismatic black guy, but not too black. Whatever the hell that means.

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, Sivin said:

Oh, and we need a white guy for the Presidential candidate. Or at the very least a ridiculously charismatic black guy, but not too black. Whatever the hell that means.

I think we'll get a white guy, but I'm increasingly convinced that what we need is a candidate who inspires people, inspires them to volunteer and to vote and to get their friends and families to vote too.  Because if Clinton could have managed the vote totals that Obama got in either '12 or '08, she wins comfortably. 

I realize that "charisma" is something of a loaded term and often excludes women, but even amongst women politicians, Clinton was very weak there. 

[Commodore]

40 minutes ago, Sivin said:

I actually think Commodore is, in the very broadest sense, on to something. 

I see no need for the Democratic contenders to focus so heavily on things like background checks, abortion, LGBT rights, equal rights for minorities, healthcare, or climate change to the near exclusion of mentioning the rest of their platform. Those are all things that get me to the booth in a heartbeat, but there are few enough Sivin's in the electorate and we just found out that even 65 million is not nearly enough.

But I know all of those things are in the Democratic Party platform, you do not need to keep telling me. Mention all of those things once a debate, please, but as a transgender person who remembers having snow on Christmas and is physically upset by racism I would rather hear my political representative mention my personal needle movers a few times less so that they can focus on their education and infrastructure bills or the magic 'jobs' word if it means actually getting votes.

It sucks that an EC majority of the country doesn't think I am a person enough to vote for my rights. It sucks that they don't consider our dying planet enough of an issue to vote to try and save it. It is a gut punch to think that they will vote against their own Healthcare interests. But that's the way it is. These things do not move the needle enough for the greater part of the EC relevant voters. I would rather see a subtle rebranding of the party's message to reach out to those who can be reached than go down with the ship swinging the racist, sexist, and ignorant haymakers.

But that's just me.

Political campaigns and elections are not the vehicle for changing the views of voters. You're too far downstream at that point. Political campaigns are for persuading voters you agree with their existing views and will advance them. 

The left largely understands this, having control over the media, the schools, the arts for decades. But they got way out over their skis pushing things the electorate was not with them on. Wiped themselves out electorally except Obama 2012, and then lost POTUS with a less skilled nominee.

[Mexal]

5 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I think we'll get a white guy, but I'm increasingly convinced that what we need is a candidate who inspires people, inspires them to volunteer and to vote and to get their friends and families to vote too.  Because if Clinton could have managed the vote totals that Obama got in either '12 or '08, she wins comfortably. 

I realize that "charisma" is something of a loaded term and often excludes women, but even amongst women politicians, Clinton was very weak there. 

We still underestimate the 850+ voting polling stations that were closed down between '12-'16 and the increased ability of states to suppress the vote after the Voting Rights Act was gutted. We keep thinking if "she just turned out people" but don't think about the fact that she did but lines were 9+ hours long in predominantly democratic areas and early voting was gutted. Voting was down (in terms of % of population I think) but it's not all attributable to Clinton's uninspiring message.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Risto said:

And I share the sentiment regarding the ultra nationalists, wherever they are. But, to ethnically clean what is now considered a country, under the NATO/UN supervision, also leaves little for interpretation. I don't escape from the fact that what some members of my people have done is horrendous, but to have no one to be blamed for the exodus 200 000 people and countless murders, killings and atrocities is wrong any given day.

Is the argument here that Nato forces should have never been inserted into Kosovo? Or is it, once they got into Kosovo they didn't do enough to protect the non-Albanian minorities?

I'm not real sure about 1. I'd agree with point two though.

Just now, Risto said:

I would agree. I don't claim otherwise. Isolationism was a bit part of Trump story. And I don't believe in it. In modern world, we are all connected. 

I think what makes Trump so dangerous isn't so much the fact he's a classic isolationist as he is more of a "go it aloneist". What I mean here, is that he believes that American military power should be used, whenever it in his estimation, suits America's interest. There is no long term thinking in his foreign policy approach, I think.

I think he sees foreign policy as being a zero sum game. America can only gain if other countries lose.

Several commentators have talked about Trump's "transactional" approach to foreign policy. It seems to be pretty much the idea of "what can America get right now" without thinking more long term.

And I agree that the autarky, that Trump talks about, probably isn't good for developing long term peaceful relations.

Just now, Risto said:

Well, I believe those that kill civilians for the sake of political, economical or any other gain should be behind bars. I understand others may disagree, but there is no denying that NATO broke quite the number of international laws in 1999. And given various scientific medical and epidemiological researches in Serbia, it seems that bombing has quite the lasting impact on the soil, water and health of the nation. 

Most people would say that the Allied Invasion of France during WW2 was justified. Yet, a little known fact, is that during the fighting between the Allied and Axis forces a considerable number of French Civilians died. From what I recall, about 20,000 died in the first couple months of fighting.

The point I'm trying to make here is that civilians always get the shit end of the stick when hostilities break out, even if the war is largely seen as being "justified". And it is a reason, why anybody thinking about using military force must think really hard before using it.

With regard to Kosovo, yeah, it's probably true that Nato broke international law by intervening. But it is also true that completely condemning Nato invervention, simply on the grounds of not getting UN authorization, kind of over simplifies the situation. If I recall correctly, Kofi Annan, while not exactly happy about Nato not getting UN authorization, didn't exactly condemn the intervention either.

And it seems to me that Milosevic bears some of the responsibility here as he could have withdrawn his forces from Kosovo as requested.

But, as I said, I've always had mixed feelings over Kosovo and If I had been making the call, I'd probably gone a different route. In fact, my first inclination would be something like "it's a European Problem, let them try to handle it" or least take the lead in trying to resolve it.

But, I think it's a bit much to compare Hillary Clinton to people like Saddam. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Maithanet said:

I realize that "charisma" is something of a loaded term and often excludes women, but even amongst women politicians, Clinton was very weak there. 

Does it? I agree with the second part. I doubt there's anybody out here, who will say that Michelle Obama is not charismatic or an engaging speaker. Having that said, I agree that Clinton was somewhat lacking those qualities. And that's somehow the part, why I am actually more mad at the DNC, Clinton and Podesta, who ran this rather uninspiring campaign. And that's somewhat also the part that annoys, the Hillary campaign blames everybody but themselves and the candidate. 

It's Comey's fault, it's the Russian hacks, it's those Fakebart midgets, and all those years of slandering at faux news, minorities votig her in the same numbers as they did for Obama; oh and Anthony Weiner's Penis. I mean, really we are not talking about who was on top of the ticket. We are not talking about the candidate not campaigning in Winconsin and instead wasting her time in Arizona.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

13 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

A world trade body of some sort is vital to the trade interests of all countries, until such time as there is some sort of world tribunal that covers a more comprehensive set of international laws, with the ability to police and enforce them.

For all the WTO's flaws, no government here would ever vote to leave it or dismantle it without there being a replacement already formulated and ready to go. 

Whether the WTO serves the interests of all countries, that is open for discussion. But like I said, me starting a rant over the WTO will go way off topic. Suffice to say, that I share the view that WTO has been more beneficial to the industrialized countries at the expense of developing countries.

[Mexal]

30 minutes ago, Notone said:

Does it? I agree with the second part. I doubt there's anybody out here, who will say that Michelle Obama is not charismatic or an engaging speaker. Having that said, I agree that Clinton was somewhat lacking those qualities. And that's somehow the part, why I am actually more mad at the DNC, Clinton and Podesta, who ran this rather uninspiring campaign. And that's somewhat also the part that annoys, the Hillary campaign blames everybody but themselves and the candidate. 

It's Comey's fault, it's the Russian hacks, it's those Fakebart midgets, and all those years of slandering at faux news, minorities votig her in the same numbers as they did for Obama; oh and Anthony Weiner's Penis. I mean, really we are not talking about who was on top of the ticket. We are not talking about the candidate not campaigning in Winconsin and instead wasting her time in Arizona.

We have talked about it. Many times. The fact is, which hasn't changed at all over the past month, there were multiple reasons that Clinton lost, some of which are due to her own poor choices and some of which were due to outside factors she had zero control over. Remember, she lost by less than 100k votes in three states and won the popular vote by 3 million. If any one or two of those factors were different, she wins. So you can focus on her poor choices, which is fine, but limiting her loss to those choices misses a ton of other factors that contributed.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Problem being that she was part of an establishment that created or at least didn't fix those problems. Why would anyone vote for someone who had put you in the position you are in and expect anything different to happen.

and yet more voters preferred her over another elite establishment guy.

 

44 minutes ago, Notone said:

Does it? I agree with the second part. I doubt there's anybody out here, who will say that Michelle Obama is not charismatic or an engaging speaker. Having that said, I agree that Clinton was somewhat lacking those qualities. And that's somehow the part, why I am actually more mad at the DNC, Clinton and Podesta, who ran this rather uninspiring campaign. And that's somewhat also the part that annoys, the Hillary campaign blames everybody but themselves and the candidate. 

It's Comey's fault, it's the Russian hacks, it's those Fakebart midgets, and all those years of slandering at faux news, minorities votig her in the same numbers as they did for Obama; oh and Anthony Weiner's Penis. I mean, really we are not talking about who was on top of the ticket. We are not talking about the candidate not campaigning in Winconsin and instead wasting her time in Arizona.

It doesn't have to be one way or the other.  I think the Comey thing definitely kept some younger voters at home.  I think the idea on the left that Clinton would win easily kept the more apathetic Dems at home.  I also think that Clinton faced an inordinate amount of criticism, scrutiny, and hatred that is only explained by her sex and gender.  The Benghazi investigation lasted longer than either the 9/11 or JFK assassination investigations did.

Trump won by the skin of his teeth. And everyone talked about how Clinton ignored the rural white voter and there's been this myth of the forgotten working man that is mostly a bullshit narrative.  Clinton failed to get the turnout she needed to win.  

I think it's simply not true to say we aren't talking about the woman on top of the ticket.  Practically the first thing you hear about her campaign is that she just isn't that likeable.  

The Dems took a hit as a party but it wasn't just because of Clinton.  It's because of their inability to show up at midterms, it's because the EC vote allocations are all fucked up, it's because the congressional Republicans literally refused to govern.  Because the DNC is a mess.  Because we live in a country that thinks it's worse to call out racism than to support a racist candidate.  Because the Dems couldn't really the youth, or the black and Latino communities like Obama did.  All these things can be and are true. And they've all been beaten to death.

It's bullshit to say that no one is talking about the lack of campaigning Wisconsin.  It's been talked about.  But it isn't anymore relevant than any of the other things that could have pushed this election the other way.

I realize you are probably just saying the Clinton campaign is only blaming outside forces for their loss.  But if there's ever a loss to be bitter about this has to be it.  Won the popular vote, lost the EC by small margin, and had to deal with more bullshit than any other campaign (Comey, sexism, the other candidate being the biggest Liar to ever run for office in this country and to openly rub on a platform of hate).

 I don't have much sympathy for the Clinton campaign, and she was certainly vulnerable on thibgs.  But now where near as flawed as Trump.  To paraphrase Ta Nehisi Coates on racism: that's what sexism is, when a woman has to jump six feet to get the same thing a man has to jump two feet for.  Whatever Hillary's flaws, Trump's were worse by an order of magnitude.  He didn't even have to jump.

 I'm not surprised they aren't publicly falling in their own sword here.  This election made it wayyyyyy too easy to find someone else to blame.  you want someone to look inward, I'm right there with you, this entire country could use a bit more of it.