Hard Choices: Why Trump won and how the Dems must change (Lyin' Steve's autopsy)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:16:22 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Hard Choices: Why Trump won and how the Dems must change (Lyin' Steve's autopsy)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: Hard Choices: Why Trump won and how the Dems must change (Lyin' Steve's autopsy)  (Read 6353 times)
history nerd
Rauren Lyan
Rookie
**
Posts: 81


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: November 13, 2016, 03:56:20 PM »

She couldn't engage Trump on a pro-business tax policy because she'd spent so much energy focusing on the part of her tax policy where she promised to punish and soak the rich, which she didn't even really believe in.  She couldn't fight back in a defense of globalism because her own base had put a gun to her head and told her to condemn it.  You all may be expecting me to blame Bernie or the activist left for this, but this is entirely Hillary's fault.  I pointed out way back in the primary that she was taking the easy way out by essentially ceding the whole policy stage to Bernie rather than standing her ground and arguing the difference between them.  If she had the confidence to argue her positions or the integrity to maintain them, she wouldn't have had this problem.

This is where she lost my vote to Johnson. Good analysis. The future of the Democratic Party should be a pluralistic, globalist, fiscally responsible one.
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: November 13, 2016, 09:43:50 PM »
« Edited: November 13, 2016, 10:57:37 PM by AmericanNation »

This is perfect.  
It is like poetry.  

I was trying to explaine it to a friend of mine and the courtroom scene from a few good men popped into my head....

"my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall -- you need me on that wall.
We use words like "honor," "code," "loyalty." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.
I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way.
Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you're entitled to!"

http://www.youtube.com/embed/_frM44bBMfA?rel=0&start=226&end=276&autoplay=1

...Now if you substituted the military points for economic points you have the working/middle class revolt to a T.  these people make the country function and you despise them.  They don't hurt anyone and you call them irredeemable bigots.  

The democrats
drowning in snark, self-righteousness, moral superiority and ego, it goes out of its way to alienate
the working man and the small businessman supporting his family and making the economy function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps us all alive.

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me
to continue building this country, you need me to make the economy work!


We use words like "honor," "family," "truth." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent building something. You use them as a punch line.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very prosperity that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.
I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a "wrench" and fix the problem (car, machine, building, etc) yourself(you don't know how). Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you're entitled to!"

 
http://www.youtube.com/embed/_frM44bBMfA?rel=0&start=226&end=276&autoplay=1
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: November 13, 2016, 10:29:36 PM »
« Edited: November 13, 2016, 10:31:26 PM by hopper »

Liberals will need to win them back -- and if the Right manages to impose bans on abortion and same-sex marriage and the imposition of fundamentalist Christianity and creationism in public schools, then we dare not return it.

The alternative is a New Feudalism of debt-bondage, torture chambers, and concentration camps in America.  Take your choice -- no abortion, or no freedom... a right-wing version of the Soviet Union or a Christian state.
The religious right is dead.  There is more threat of prohibition coming back than a Christian Thoecracy in America.
Well Trump Is "Pro-Life" and he isn't for Gay Marriage but this campaign wasn't about Social Issues it was about the economy and ISIS.
Logged
Kalimantan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 841
Indonesia


Political Matrix
E: -3.10, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: November 14, 2016, 11:33:03 AM »

The problem with so much of this well-thought out analysis comes down to this:

"The Dems won the most votes, and therefore they must change."

"The Dems policies are more popular than the Republicans policies, and therefore they must change them"

The logic is totally screwed, because the EC and house districting are totally screwed. It ends up with the Dems having to appeal to different people, rather than more people, which effectively means some kinds of people are more important than others.

Which isn't a nice conclusion
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: November 14, 2016, 06:48:01 PM »

The problem with so much of this well-thought out analysis comes down to this:

"The Dems won the most votes, and therefore they must change."

"The Dems policies are more popular than the Republicans policies, and therefore they must change them"

The logic is totally screwed, because the EC and house districting are totally screwed. It ends up with the Dems having to appeal to different people, rather than more people, which effectively means some kinds of people are more important than others.

Which isn't a nice conclusion
While you layout a cohearent thought... it isn't correct. 
1) The popular vote is next to irrelevant.
2) Trump didn't try to win the popular vote, Clinton didn't try to win it either.
3) Trying to downplay a loss because you are in the margin of error of a nearly irrelevant stat isn't a good way to go. 
4) This is the "United States of America", not the "Mass of Americans in a single entity", so this naive abolish the electoral college stuff needs to stop (thats in general not in response)   
Logged
‼realJohnEwards‼
MatteKudasai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,867
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: November 14, 2016, 07:00:17 PM »

The problem with so much of this well-thought out analysis comes down to this:

"The Dems won the most votes, and therefore they must change."

"The Dems policies are more popular than the Republicans policies, and therefore they must change them"

The logic is totally screwed, because the EC and house districting are totally screwed. It ends up with the Dems having to appeal to different people, rather than more people, which effectively means some kinds of people are more important than others.

Which isn't a nice conclusion
While you layout a cohearent thought... it isn't correct. 
1) The popular vote is next to irrelevant.
2) Trump didn't try to win the popular vote, Clinton didn't try to win it either.
3) Trying to downplay a loss because you are in the margin of error of a nearly irrelevant stat isn't a good way to go. 
4) This is the "United States of America", not the "Mass of Americans in a single entity", so this naive abolish the electoral college stuff needs to stop (thats in general not in response)   
This ignores his main point, which is that the EC values some people's interests above others'. This is anathema to its original intent, which was to protect all points of view.
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: November 14, 2016, 07:12:16 PM »

The problem with so much of this well-thought out analysis comes down to this:

"The Dems won the most votes, and therefore they must change."

"The Dems policies are more popular than the Republicans policies, and therefore they must change them"

The logic is totally screwed, because the EC and house districting are totally screwed. It ends up with the Dems having to appeal to different people, rather than more people, which effectively means some kinds of people are more important than others.

Which isn't a nice conclusion
While you layout a cohearent thought... it isn't correct. 
1) The popular vote is next to irrelevant.
2) Trump didn't try to win the popular vote, Clinton didn't try to win it either.
3) Trying to downplay a loss because you are in the margin of error of a nearly irrelevant stat isn't a good way to go. 
4) This is the "United States of America", not the "Mass of Americans in a single entity", so this naive abolish the electoral college stuff needs to stop (thats in general not in response)   
This ignores his main point, which is that the EC values some people's interests above others'. This is anathema to its original intent, which was to protect all points of view.
The EC intent was similar to, but not "protect all points of view". 
It was to encourage a diversity of interests and regions pick the winner... and also prevent mob rule
It just did that, so I don't understand the point.
Dems need to get broader and more diverse than a small footprint of urban interests in a minimum number of states, basically on the coasts. 

   
Logged
Kalimantan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 841
Indonesia


Political Matrix
E: -3.10, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: November 14, 2016, 08:42:19 PM »

The problem with so much of this well-thought out analysis comes down to this:

"The Dems won the most votes, and therefore they must change."

"The Dems policies are more popular than the Republicans policies, and therefore they must change them"

The logic is totally screwed, because the EC and house districting are totally screwed. It ends up with the Dems having to appeal to different people, rather than more people, which effectively means some kinds of people are more important than others.

Which isn't a nice conclusion
While you layout a cohearent thought... it isn't correct. 
1) The popular vote is next to irrelevant.
2) Trump didn't try to win the popular vote, Clinton didn't try to win it either.
3) Trying to downplay a loss because you are in the margin of error of a nearly irrelevant stat isn't a good way to go. 
4) This is the "United States of America", not the "Mass of Americans in a single entity", so this naive abolish the electoral college stuff needs to stop (thats in general not in response)   

I disagree with your points, but thats by-the-by. The question was, how should the Dems change? Its been shown they're popular than the Republicans,  but they are the ones that have to change their policies. I don't see how they can go about that in a coherent way, other than dumping the positions the majority like, and supporting policies the minority like. And once again we've run out of logic right there.
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: November 14, 2016, 09:07:34 PM »

The problem with so much of this well-thought out analysis comes down to this:

"The Dems won the most votes, and therefore they must change."

"The Dems policies are more popular than the Republicans policies, and therefore they must change them"

The logic is totally screwed, because the EC and house districting are totally screwed. It ends up with the Dems having to appeal to different people, rather than more people, which effectively means some kinds of people are more important than others.

Which isn't a nice conclusion
While you layout a cohearent thought... it isn't correct. 
1) The popular vote is next to irrelevant.
2) Trump didn't try to win the popular vote, Clinton didn't try to win it either.
3) Trying to downplay a loss because you are in the margin of error of a nearly irrelevant stat isn't a good way to go. 
4) This is the "United States of America", not the "Mass of Americans in a single entity", so this naive abolish the electoral college stuff needs to stop (thats in general not in response)   

I disagree with your points, but thats by-the-by. The question was, how should the Dems change? Its been shown they're popular than the Republicans,  but they are the ones that have to change their policies. I don't see how they can go about that in a coherent way, other than dumping the positions the majority like, and supporting policies the minority like. And once again we've run out of logic right there.
OK, I'll put it like this:
Party A competes successfully in 35 states
Party B competes successfully in 20 states
(5 overlaps)
Party B is shocked that they are out of touch with vast swaths of the country. 
Logged
‼realJohnEwards‼
MatteKudasai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,867
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: November 14, 2016, 09:39:19 PM »

The problem with so much of this well-thought out analysis comes down to this:

"The Dems won the most votes, and therefore they must change."

"The Dems policies are more popular than the Republicans policies, and therefore they must change them"

The logic is totally screwed, because the EC and house districting are totally screwed. It ends up with the Dems having to appeal to different people, rather than more people, which effectively means some kinds of people are more important than others.

Which isn't a nice conclusion
While you layout a cohearent thought... it isn't correct.  
1) The popular vote is next to irrelevant.
2) Trump didn't try to win the popular vote, Clinton didn't try to win it either.
3) Trying to downplay a loss because you are in the margin of error of a nearly irrelevant stat isn't a good way to go.  
4) This is the "United States of America", not the "Mass of Americans in a single entity", so this naive abolish the electoral college stuff needs to stop (thats in general not in response)    
This ignores his main point, which is that the EC values some people's interests above others'. This is anathema to its original intent, which was to protect all points of view.
The EC intent was similar to, but not "protect all points of view".  
It was to encourage a diversity of interests and regions pick the winner... and also prevent mob rule
It just did that, so I don't understand the point.
Dems need to get broader and more diverse than a small footprint of urban interests in a minimum number of states, basically on the coasts.  

    
Trump lost every race but whites, every income group but 50k-100k, and most of his supporters were not "strongly favorable" towards him. He does not reflect the needs of interests of Americans at large. Also, which candidate was "mob"-supported again? I seem to remember some crowd sizes saying otherwise... Wink
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: November 14, 2016, 10:12:53 PM »

The problem with so much of this well-thought out analysis comes down to this:

"The Dems won the most votes, and therefore they must change."

"The Dems policies are more popular than the Republicans policies, and therefore they must change them"

The logic is totally screwed, because the EC and house districting are totally screwed. It ends up with the Dems having to appeal to different people, rather than more people, which effectively means some kinds of people are more important than others.

Which isn't a nice conclusion
While you layout a cohearent thought... it isn't correct.  
1) The popular vote is next to irrelevant.
2) Trump didn't try to win the popular vote, Clinton didn't try to win it either.
3) Trying to downplay a loss because you are in the margin of error of a nearly irrelevant stat isn't a good way to go.  
4) This is the "United States of America", not the "Mass of Americans in a single entity", so this naive abolish the electoral college stuff needs to stop (thats in general not in response)    
This ignores his main point, which is that the EC values some people's interests above others'. This is anathema to its original intent, which was to protect all points of view.
The EC intent was similar to, but not "protect all points of view".  
It was to encourage a diversity of interests and regions pick the winner... and also prevent mob rule
It just did that, so I don't understand the point.
Dems need to get broader and more diverse than a small footprint of urban interests in a minimum number of states, basically on the coasts.  

    
Trump lost every race but whites, every income group but 50k-100k, and most of his supporters were not "strongly favorable" towards him. He does not reflect the needs of interests of Americans at large. Also, which candidate was "mob"-supported again? I seem to remember some crowd sizes saying otherwise... Wink
I'm going to say the people currently rioting in the streets tonight for no reason are more of a mob than the family men wearing work boots. 
Logged
Kalimantan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 841
Indonesia


Political Matrix
E: -3.10, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: November 15, 2016, 08:32:07 AM »

The problem with so much of this well-thought out analysis comes down to this:

"The Dems won the most votes, and therefore they must change."

"The Dems policies are more popular than the Republicans policies, and therefore they must change them"

The logic is totally screwed, because the EC and house districting are totally screwed. It ends up with the Dems having to appeal to different people, rather than more people, which effectively means some kinds of people are more important than others.

Which isn't a nice conclusion
While you layout a cohearent thought... it isn't correct. 
1) The popular vote is next to irrelevant.
2) Trump didn't try to win the popular vote, Clinton didn't try to win it either.
3) Trying to downplay a loss because you are in the margin of error of a nearly irrelevant stat isn't a good way to go. 
4) This is the "United States of America", not the "Mass of Americans in a single entity", so this naive abolish the electoral college stuff needs to stop (thats in general not in response)   

I disagree with your points, but thats by-the-by. The question was, how should the Dems change? Its been shown they're popular than the Republicans,  but they are the ones that have to change their policies. I don't see how they can go about that in a coherent way, other than dumping the positions the majority like, and supporting policies the minority like. And once again we've run out of logic right there.
OK, I'll put it like this:
Party A competes successfully in 35 states
Party B competes successfully in 20 states
(5 overlaps)
Party B is shocked that they are out of touch with vast swaths of the country. 

Well exactly,  thats my point also. Some Americans views are more important than others.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: November 15, 2016, 09:26:17 AM »

The idea that either major party represents 'a diversity of interests' at this point is silly; certainly it's silly to claim that the Republicans somehow represent substantially more of such a diversity or that that's why they won the EV. The political story of this election is both parties doubling down on the base they developed during the Obama years and only minimally if at all trying to reach anyone on the other side, leading to the most geographically polarized electorate in at least a century.
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: November 15, 2016, 09:48:40 AM »

The idea that either major party represents 'a diversity of interests' at this point is silly; certainly it's silly to claim that the Republicans somehow represent substantially more of such a diversity or that that's why they won the EV. The political story of this election is both parties doubling down on the base they developed during the Obama years and only minimally if at all trying to reach anyone on the other side, leading to the most geographically polarized electorate in at least a century.
Sounds good, but you bring nothing to the table.

I'd say a guy working on an oil rig in Louisiana vs a dairy farmer in Wisconsin vs a lumberjack in Idaho is quantitatively more diverse than a barista in Seattle vs a barista in Boston.     
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: November 15, 2016, 10:01:10 AM »
« Edited: November 15, 2016, 10:03:00 AM by 1945>1488 »

The idea that either major party represents 'a diversity of interests' at this point is silly; certainly it's silly to claim that the Republicans somehow represent substantially more of such a diversity or that that's why they won the EV. The political story of this election is both parties doubling down on the base they developed during the Obama years and only minimally if at all trying to reach anyone on the other side, leading to the most geographically polarized electorate in at least a century.
Sounds good, but you bring nothing to the table.

I'd say a guy working on an oil rig in Louisiana vs a dairy farmer in Wisconsin vs a lumberjack in Idaho is quantitatively more diverse than a barista in Seattle vs a barista in Boston.     

I'm not one to claim that urban America is somehow 'better' or inherently more interesting or well-textured than rural America--far from it, I'm one of the loudest and most consistent left-wing defenders of rural areas on the forum--but I currently live in the Boston area and I can tell you that what you're implying about urban populations is incredibly pat and stereotyped. Clinton won Suffolk County 80-17. Surely you don't think four-fifths of all Bostonians are baristas?
Logged
Confused Democrat
reidmill
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,055
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: November 15, 2016, 10:17:42 AM »

The idea that either major party represents 'a diversity of interests' at this point is silly; certainly it's silly to claim that the Republicans somehow represent substantially more of such a diversity or that that's why they won the EV. The political story of this election is both parties doubling down on the base they developed during the Obama years and only minimally if at all trying to reach anyone on the other side, leading to the most geographically polarized electorate in at least a century.
Sounds good, but you bring nothing to the table.

I'd say a guy working on an oil rig in Louisiana vs a dairy farmer in Wisconsin vs a lumberjack in Idaho is quantitatively more diverse than a barista in Seattle vs a barista in Boston.     


Sounds good, but you bring nothing to the table.

I'd say a guy working at an elemtary school in Manhattan vs a nurse in Los Angeles vs a culinary worker in Las Vegas is quantitatively more diverse than a coal miner in West Virginia vs a coal miner in Wyoming. 

See what I did there?   
Logged
Coolface Sock #42069
whitesox130
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,695
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.39, S: 2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: November 15, 2016, 11:13:37 AM »

Great post, Steve; I wish I had time to make a similar list of the problems facing the GOP.

Also, I'd really appreciate it if this thread could not become another debate on the Electoral College.
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: November 15, 2016, 01:18:40 PM »

The idea that either major party represents 'a diversity of interests' at this point is silly; certainly it's silly to claim that the Republicans somehow represent substantially more of such a diversity or that that's why they won the EV. The political story of this election is both parties doubling down on the base they developed during the Obama years and only minimally if at all trying to reach anyone on the other side, leading to the most geographically polarized electorate in at least a century.
Sounds good, but you bring nothing to the table.

I'd say a guy working on an oil rig in Louisiana vs a dairy farmer in Wisconsin vs a lumberjack in Idaho is quantitatively more diverse than a barista in Seattle vs a barista in Boston.     


Sounds good, but you bring nothing to the table.

I'd say a guy working at an elemtary school in Manhattan vs a nurse in Los Angeles vs a culinary worker in Las Vegas is quantitatively more diverse than a coal miner in West Virginia vs a coal miner in Wyoming. 

See what I did there?   
omg,
public employees, politicized union members, over educated - under skilled baristas 
vs
EVERYONE ELSE

...you fail to realize that the coal miner in Wyoming vs the coal miner in West Virginia IS MORE diverse than the democrat examples.   
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: November 15, 2016, 01:24:35 PM »

The idea that either major party represents 'a diversity of interests' at this point is silly; certainly it's silly to claim that the Republicans somehow represent substantially more of such a diversity or that that's why they won the EV. The political story of this election is both parties doubling down on the base they developed during the Obama years and only minimally if at all trying to reach anyone on the other side, leading to the most geographically polarized electorate in at least a century.
Sounds good, but you bring nothing to the table.

I'd say a guy working on an oil rig in Louisiana vs a dairy farmer in Wisconsin vs a lumberjack in Idaho is quantitatively more diverse than a barista in Seattle vs a barista in Boston.     


Sounds good, but you bring nothing to the table.

I'd say a guy working at an elemtary school in Manhattan vs a nurse in Los Angeles vs a culinary worker in Las Vegas is quantitatively more diverse than a coal miner in West Virginia vs a coal miner in Wyoming. 

See what I did there?   
omg,
public employees, politicized union members, over educated - under skilled baristas 
vs
EVERYONE ELSE

...you fail to realize that the coal miner in Wyoming vs the coal miner in West Virginia IS MORE diverse than the democrat examples.   

omg,
business owners, politicized conservative ideologues, primary industry workers
vs
EVERYONE ELSE

...you fail to realize that the barista in Seattle vs the barista in Boston IS MORE diverse than the republican examples.   

___

See how absolutely dismissive, patronizing, and downright ridiculous that sounds?
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: November 15, 2016, 06:46:29 PM »
« Edited: November 15, 2016, 06:53:14 PM by AmericanNation »

The EC intent was similar to, but not "protect all points of view".  
It was to encourage a diversity of interests and regions pick the winner... and also prevent mob rule
It just did that, so I don't understand the point.
Dems need to get broader and more diverse than a small footprint of urban interests in a minimum number of states, basically on the coasts.      
You are trying not to understand, but I'm also not explaining it well. 
Trying to steer us back to productive discourse and to better explain the point, I give you my "2 Americas".  
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: November 15, 2016, 10:30:11 PM »

The EC intent was similar to, but not "protect all points of view".  
It was to encourage a diversity of interests and regions pick the winner... and also prevent mob rule
It just did that, so I don't understand the point.
Dems need to get broader and more diverse than a small footprint of urban interests in a minimum number of states, basically on the coasts.      
You are trying not to understand, but I'm also not explaining it well. 
Trying to steer us back to productive discourse and to better explain the point, I give you my "2 Americas".  

Someone comment on this map, it explains so much of the democrats problem. 
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: November 15, 2016, 11:21:32 PM »

I'm not denying that it's a problem, I'm the first to say that the Democrats need to regain some appeal outside the coastal and Chicagoland bubbles if they want to govern again, but it still doesn't explain why it's somehow fair that the candidate that the second-most voters wanted got in.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: November 16, 2016, 04:05:35 PM »

The EC intent was similar to, but not "protect all points of view". 
It was to encourage a diversity of interests and regions pick the winner... and also prevent mob rule
It just did that, so I don't understand the point.
Dems need to get broader and more diverse than a small footprint of urban interests in a minimum number of states, basically on the coasts.     
You are trying not to understand, but I'm also not explaining it well. 
Trying to steer us back to productive discourse and to better explain the point, I give you my "2 Americas". 

Someone comment on this map, it explains so much of the democrats problem. 
A map that's not based on anything really can't be used to explain much at all, actually.
Logged
bagelman
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,602
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -4.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: November 16, 2016, 05:06:01 PM »

The EC intent was similar to, but not "protect all points of view".  
It was to encourage a diversity of interests and regions pick the winner... and also prevent mob rule
It just did that, so I don't understand the point.
Dems need to get broader and more diverse than a small footprint of urban interests in a minimum number of states, basically on the coasts.      
You are trying not to understand, but I'm also not explaining it well. 
Trying to steer us back to productive discourse and to better explain the point, I give you my "2 Americas".  

Someone comment on this map, it explains so much of the democrats problem. 

Why do the people in the red counties matter more than the people in the blue counties? Are the votes of people in places with low population density supposed to matter more? Are they more important?

I think the point is that they don't matter less.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.066 seconds with 14 queries.