American Politics Thread: Orange is the new POTUS

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Because the American voter is not that bright, and voted with emotion, not logic

Voters from everywhere vote emotionally. Rationality never enters into the equation. The scientific literature is full of examples to support this.

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by photon

And in the interest of fairness, some cartoons with a different perspective

what the hell does that first one even mean?

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

what the hell does that first one even mean?

It's just a bunch of stereotypes the right has for the left.

• Snowflakes

• CNN brainwashing (they think since so many of them only watch Fox News that there must be an equivalence on the left)

• Furries, for some reason.

• George Takei is a big LGBTQ+ support so of course they hate him

I'm more perplexed by the third one. Is it recent?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I'm sure the sorts of people that cartoon is designed to appeal to simply lump furries in with LGBTQ as a sort of broad basket of what they consider deviant lifestyles. None of those cartoons made any sense. I assume the third one was from the campaign.

[photon]

The first one also has Sulu calling him a manspreader, manspreading is " the practice of men sitting in public transport with legs wide apart, thereby covering more than one seat." Which men totally do. The opposite is "she bagging", where women put their bags on the seat next to them taking up two seats, which I totally do unless the seats are full on the train. People lost their minds because anything critical of men is a feminist plot to hate all men, or something.

The dumbest part is a Canadian men's rights group that said men set like that because it's painful to sit with their legs closed, they need to spread their legs to accommodate their testicles. Which I think it just their way of claiming they have gigantic genitals.

[photon]

I checked and the third one was from after the election, I guess basking in Trump's victory by imagining how awful a Clinton win would have been.

It was commissioned by Mike Cernovich, who is an alt right nationalist blogger and self professed professional troll who promoted the Comet pizza pedophile stupidity. Trump Jr. said Cernovich should get a Pulitzer for breaking the Susan Rice non-story.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

So I'm just guessing based on those responses that you didn't actually post those cartoons in the interest of fairness as you said, but rather to caricature the opposition? I'm just confused as to why you bothered.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Those cartoons suck...not the message per se...they just are kind of hack-y

The alt-right doesn't seem to have a good sense of humour (is there ANY example of a quality right wing comedian)

[GirlySports]

some stats

Spoiler!

Republicans now have 34 state governors after WV Gov. Jim Justice switched parties, tying their all-time record. Democrats have just 15 govs. Despite the GOP's record number of govs, their states only cover 61% of the population vs. Dems' 39%, which is far from a record proportion.

Spoiler!

Republicans control the legislature in 32 states while Democrats do so in just 13. GOP states cover 61% of the US population, Dems just 28%

Spoiler!

Republicans control the governor's office, state high court & legislature together (called the "trifecta") in 26 states, while Democrats do in merely 6 states


It's hard to overstate how poorly the Democratic Party is doing nationwide.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Everyone loves Hillary and her campaign was run in extraordinary fashion.

Frankly it's a mystery as to how she lost.

You forgot the green text

[photon]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

So I'm just guessing based on those responses that you didn't actually post those cartoons in the interest of fairness as you said, but rather to caricature the opposition? I'm just confused as to why you bothered.

Not sure how cartoons from the right can be a caricature of the right.

My comments were in response to the questions asked based on some research, they were not prepared in advance so that I could cleverly swoop in and promote a position after posting the cartoons to create an opportunity.

I bothered because I found them amusing and a bit disturbing and an interesting contrast.

The fairness comment was a bit of sarcasm because apparently I'm an embarrassment if I take and defend a position or engage in a discussion that someone else doesn't think is worthwhile.

[dino7c]

The more I hear about the popular vote the more I think nothing has been learned...the rules aren't changing. Calif and New York are voting democrat, winning the popular vote as a democrat is nothing to write home about.

Electoral system is what it is...find a way to win the swing states or enjoy another four years of trump. Hillary was NOT popular enough to win the election, she lost...to a clown

Excuses are for losers, find some answers...start with a candidate who hasn't recently been under investigation by the FBI

[photon]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

It's hard to overstate how poorly the Democratic Party is doing nationwide.

They're reaping the benefits of ignoring the local level stuff. They say they've recognized the error of their ways and are working to get more candidates and more support for them at those levels, but we'll see if they walk the talk.

One interesting stat I saw was 64% of the GDP is generated by blue counties, which if true and considering those maps is pretty striking.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

some stats
It's hard to overstate how poorly the Democratic Party is doing nationwide.

All your pretty graphs aside, this is grossly overstated. On a national level, redistricting efforts could change these maps overnight. The fact that gerrymandering challenges are headed through the courts right now, means these maps are likely irrelevant. The only reason Republicans maintain any control is they have invested so much at the state level, but that is changing quickly. Less rural voters and more urban voters means the Republicans have a short shelf life, even at the state level. State politics is substantially different from federal politics, which is why there could be a Democratic governor from WV to switch his allegiance (which he switched before for political expediency). I would never get concerned the way state politics breaks unless there was a constitutional convention called. Even then, I would not be over concerned. The urban dwellers (67% of GDP) would crush the urban dwellers (33% of GDP) if push came to shove. Trump can pull out of the Paris accord, it doesn't mean anyone in the areas that matter will listen.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by photon

One interesting stat I saw was 64% of the GDP is generated by blue counties, which if true and considering those maps is pretty striking.

The other thing to consider is that over 80% of the population is urban versus rural. The rural vote is grossly over-valued. That will change, especially if the money starts coming in from urban interests. It is actually quite sad that rural citizens have much more value placed on their vote. Considering they lag well behind their urban counterparts in education and exposure to the world around them, it speaks poorly to that this segment of the population has the vote slanted in their favor. That may sound elitist, but do you want someone who has some expertise leading the nation, or a guy like Jim Inhofe creating policy?

[photon]

Interesting interview with Maggie Haberman, I only started it but it's been interesting so far.

https://longform.org/posts/longform-...aggie-haberman

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by New Era

She had no unique position on anything and was as centrist as you could get. That was a negative because it made her appear as someone with out their own individual moral compass, and untrustworthy as a result. There was not a single issue she didn't have a capitualtive position on. I hated her because of that. She stood for noting. I want someone to stand for something, even if it is unpopular. .

man, I hate this rhetoric.
Please give 2 or 3 quick examples of what she should have done.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by New Era

Voters from everywhere vote emotionally. Rationality never enters into the equation. The scientific literature is full of examples to support this.

What percentage?
I agree up to a certain point, but it's the people who could and should vote with their brains, that voted with misguided emotion that annoy me.

[driveway]

The election is over. Hillary lost for many reasons. There is actually a thread in which one can continue to rehash it.

From Daily Beast today:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/white-h...rs-bannon-feud

An internal White House enemies list of alleged Obama loyalists to be fired early in the Trump administration is a key contributor to a long-running feud between the National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster and White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, two senior administration officials tell The Daily Beast.

Team Trump never acted on the list, the officials said, and now those employees have finished their tenure at the National Security Council and returned to their home agencies.
But fallout over the list—and questions about loyalty to Bannon versus McMaster—led the three-star general to fire two of his top aides, an act that’s landed McMaster in the firing line of Bannon’s alt-right media allies and Russian troll bots, both calling for his ouster.

The banner headline at Breitbart today:
"Top McMaster Ally Bill Kristol Plotting to Primary, Oust Trump: Must ‘Take One Shot’ at Removing POTUS"

Bill Kristol, a prominent “Never Trumper” and one of national security adviser H.R. McMaster’s fiercest defenders and allies, is reportedly scheming to primary or oust President Donald Trump so Republicans do not renominate him in 2020.
...
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who effusively praised McMaster and reportedly was one of the Senators who pushed the White House to replace former national security adviser Mike Flynn with McMaster, is also mentioned in the piece.

The piece has nothing whatsoever to do with McMaster, but any time a potential link can be made, it is made.

There is also extensive anti-McMaster rhetoric in this piece: http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ump-impeached/

McMaster’s team recently expressed his team’s “disapproval” of Trump’s actions abroad to the Associated Press, undercutting Trump in the process yet again.
...
“McMaster and other national security aides also advised the president against holding an official bilateral meeting with Putin” while “McMaster expressed his disapproval of Trump’s course to foreign officials during the lead-up to his trip to Germany.”
...
Those like Max Boot, a Never Trumper who was one of the first to suggest that Trump could be impeached after he fired Comey and thus allowed Democrats to pile on even more, has been ferociously defending McMaster along with other Never Trumpers like Kristol and Dan Senor.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

man, I hate this rhetoric.
Please give 2 or 3 quick examples of what she should have done.

Rhetoric? It's fact. Clinton was a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign. What should Clinton have done differently, that would have all but guaranteed herself victory?

1) Have a message that resonated with voters. Messaging wins elections, policy doesn't. If you are string on policy, create your message based on how those policies help the demographic you are reaching out to. Make that policy personal for your voters and establish an emotional attachment to that policy. Clinton was a policy wonk, had some good policy behind her, but she never made those policies important to the American people.

2) Take a principled stance on something. This was Clinton's greatest weakness. Trump painted her as someone with no principles and she did little to counter that narrative. All she had to do was pick one issue based on principles, and draw that line in the sand. Gee, if there was only an issue that she could have made her firewall and made the election about. What could that have been? Something that she strongly believed in and could fight for? I don't know, how about fighting for healthcare for all? That would have been an issue where she would have had some gravitas and appeared to be maintaining a principled stand. Instead she was soft on the issue and fled to the center.

3) At least give the impression you understand the challenges average Americans are suffering through. This is where Trump mopped the floor with her. Even though Trump lived in a real gilded tower, and was so detached from the real world, he was still able to use his celebrity to reach out and convince people he understood what they were going for. He won the rust belt because of this. Clinton never did anything to connect with the voters. She never really appeared to understand their plight, nor even know where "average Americans" live (hint: everywhere, and with unique challenges in each location).

4) Appeal to Bernie voters. Clinton could have easily kept the Democratic base energized if she had just embraced an issue or two from Bernie's platform. If she had just shifted from the center and broke to the real left on even a couple of issues she would have kept the base intact. Instead she fled to the center and alienated those very voters that would have carried her to victory. If she had embraced medicare for all, or eliminating the student debt problem in the country, or getting big money out of elections, or committing to fighting climate change, or anything that would have helped the less fortunate in an shape of fashion, that would have won over that block of voters.

5) Know the battleground and defend it. Clinton lost sight of the battleground and refused to get out and defend it. She rarely set foot in the three states that lost the election, and that cost her huge. She barely went anywhere that last month of the campaign, thinking she had it wrapped up.

6) Stay strong, even when you are weak or when you make a mistake. Clinton screwed up and showed her soft underbelly too many times. She didn't defend well, and she was weak on the attack. When she made the deplorables comment, she walked it back. That showed weakness. She should have remained on the attack. She should have owned that statement and showed, in graphic terms, the segment of the population that she was talking about, and make Trump wear that cross. She didn't. She was weak.

7) Use negatives as positives. When she was getting hammered because of the email scandal, she should have used that to her advantage. She should have owned that issue and made it a campaign issue. That could have been her principled stance. She should have gone out there and said that, yes, she was wrong in using a private email server. Then she should have pointed out all the other politicians that have done, and still are, doing the same. Then should have pointed out that it was going to be her mission to right this wrong and make it illegal for the use of such systems. Make it a transparency issue and say you are doing it for the American people, so there is more openness and trust between the people and their government. She didn't and Trump beat her to death with this issue.

8) Silence Jim Comey. She should have got out in front of this issue and hammered home that she had been investigated, to death, and the issue had been adjudicated. Convince the people that the issue was dead and cut the legs out from underneath Comey, so he couldn't have the October Surprise that cripples your campaign.

9) Be human and buy a personality. Clinton was as stiff as a Disney animatronic. She had the warmth of hibernating toad. She had opportunity to she was human, but she failed time-and-time again.

10) Expose your opponent for what he is. There was enough dirt out there on Trump that should have buried him early. Trump has connections to the mafia, to Russian oligarchs, to child traffickers, to money laundering and fraud, and was bankrupt more times than anyone could realistically be allowed. Clinton used none of this to her advantage and did not crush Trump like the sewer cockroach that he is. For an experienced politician, she got schooled by the neophyte.

Originally Posted by DuffMan

What percentage?
I agree up to a certain point, but it's the people who could and should vote with their brains, that voted with misguided emotion that annoy me.

What percentage vote emotionally? 100%. It's how we think. Its what drives us. You don't choose to cheer for a particular sports team because you rationalize your decision, you cheer for that team because they appeal to something in you emotionally. Then you try to build a rationalization around fulfilling that emotional need. Politics and political affiliation are no different. Emotions drive us, and political messaging is most effective when it is emotionally driven. Westen, Lakoff, Haidt, Goffman, McCombs, Bernays, etc. all have made hay on explaining how our emotions drive our decision making and actually inhibit our ability to rationalize issues. Everyone votes with their brains, but it the emotion centers of our brains that drive our decision making abilities.