American Politics the 2016 edition

Everyone. I hate to be "this guy" but stop giving Colin attention. 

Edited by JJLehto - November 14 2016 at 23:36

JJLehto wrote: Knows nothing of rural/working class people.

WRONG, most of my family are farmers.  Special thanks for the implication that ruralites aren't "good families"

Look, it's nothing personal to anybody here, but the DRAMATIC changes to public discourse of the past 5-10 years are reversing and reversing hard.  Anybody who is paying attention can tell that, just like anybody who was paying attention has known Trump would win for well over a year.  The kali yuga is ending.


Edited by Triceratopsoil - November 15 2016 at 00:54

Trump is already talking to Trudeau about renegotiating NAFTA as well

Triceratopsoil wrote: Trump is already talking to Trudeau about renegotiating NAFTA as well

Edited by JJLehto - November 15 2016 at 01:48

JJLehto wrote: Ah yes. Trump's "I wont take my salary" has won an iota of respect from even die hard haters.

micky wrote: balletto di bronzo man....

Ooohhh... I could've searched for eternity, I don't think I would've gone the Via Roma direction in that quest

Thanks

Triceratopsoil wrote: Mainstream media is fairly accurate Buzzfeed as a citation for that claim

Complaining about the source of good data does not make for intelligible debate. For that matter, do recall that John Edwards was correctly outed by the National Enquirer and not by any traditional news source on either side.

For any interested parties, I actually found my way to that Buzzfeed article by way of Harvard's Niemen Lab, on which an article was published concerning the disparities in media consumption.

JJLehto wrote: Everyone. I hate to be "this guy" but stop giving Colin attention.  He has clearly joined the alt right club. Like Trump himself attention fuels the fire. You can't win. It will just be nonsensical, circular arguments filled with stupid memes, purposely designed to annoy and distract. When all else fails, the classic alt right argument is to find a way to turn it on you. YOU actually are the one being racist/sexist etc happens every time. No matter how detailed the response, mockery and "" will be the response. You won't get anywhere.

Triceratopsoil wrote: Look, it's nothing personal to anybody here, but the DRAMATIC changes to public discourse of the past 5-10 years are reversing and reversing hard.

Context: 10 years ago, George W. Bush was striking the midpoint of his second term, and the Great Recession had yet to strike. Unemployment was at 4.5% (it is presently 4.9%), and labor force engagement was still high, albeit below its Clinton-era peak.

I make this point because the conditions which have yielded a Trump victory are largely economic. Following the Great Recession, we saw a dramatic loss of manufacturing jobs. In fact, there's some evidence that manufacturing job loss is centered on recessions, of which we have since experienced the largest in nearly a century. Agricultural employment has stagnated for decades, losing in number and more dramatically in percentage of the workforce. Unemployment remains high in that sector, even as the overall unemployment rate has fallen. Similarly, the recovery hasn't brought a return to manufacturing employment. Wisconsin and Michigan have two of the slowest population growth rates. Let's not forget how much Obama touted the (wildly successful) auto bailout in 2012, which certainly helped bolster his numbers in the key state of Michigan.

The cultural factors? Well, despite what some liberals would say, W. largely governed from the center. Obama has governed from the center. The center has been the bedrock of politics. What has changed in the past 10 years is the dramatic polarization of our electorate, and that has not been reversed but rather accelerated by Trump's rise. However, I as I said, I am tempted to believe the primary driver of that polarization has been economic. It has been West Virginians -- the only state to decline in population -- raising hell over the decline of their way of life. Like Ross Perot's aversion to debt, I expect that the cause of protecting the economic well-being of all people will simply be co-opted by both parties. The safeguards against aristocracy have been eroded for half a century, and this may be the pushback.

Triceratopsoil wrote: Without New York and California she would have lost popular vote by millions.  Do you think New York and California should decide things for the rest of the country?  Electoral votes exist for a reason.

Whether Trump would win without the Electoral College is moot. The dynamics would shift dramatically as people would vote who otherwise don't due to their vote not actually mattering. Noncompetitive states have low turnout, which skews the result, and pollsters almost universally seek likely voters rather than the electorate at large. Consider these turnout rates: Hawaii 42%, Utah 46%, West Virginia 51%, Tennessee 51%, Oklahoma 52%, New York 52%, Arkansas 52%, California 54%. Those are the non-competitive states at the bottom of the turnout rolls. How about the competitive ones? New Hampshire 70%, Wisconsin 68%, Colorado 68, Michigan 65%, Virginia 65%, Florida 65%, Ohio 65%, Pennsylvania 61%. The swing states are the high-turnout ones.

As for why the Electoral College exists, it has nothing at all to do with the current dynamic. The framers of the Constitution did not plan on political parties dominating the discussion, did not plan on statewide plurality voting for electors, did not plan on bound delegates, and did not even plan on the Electoral College deciding most elections. There can be no mistake here: the current function of the Electoral College was never intended or even considered to be a possibility. (Federalism was, however, quite intended with the system, but that's a different issue altogether.)

To be honest, I’m less troubled by the alien invaders than I am by the leader we’re taking them to.”

Edited by dr wu23 - November 15 2016 at 14:02

Triceratopsoil wrote: JJLehto wrote: And ya know, more people actually DID vote for Clinton  Without New York and California she would have lost popular vote by millions.  Do you think New York and California should decide things for the rest of the country?  Electoral votes exist for a reason. JJLehto wrote: Since Obama ran on renegotiating NAFTA in 2008, one reason I liked him, it would be painful if Trump managed to do it  Honest question, if Trump passes changes that you support is it a bad thing in your eyes?  Especially if they are changes the democrats have been talking about for years and never actually did anything about?