What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Capella's 24-hour, VERY bigly OH MY GOD HOW DID WE GET HERE thread (2 Viewers)

Phil Elliott said:
Detroit Free Press still standing by their Tuesday pm call that Michigan goes to Clinton.
Click to expand...
Clinton's been ~12,000 votes behind (out of about 2.7 million cast) since yesterday afternoon at 4 p.m. EST. The vote counts haven't changed since then, so I am not sure what's going on.

I thought the Free Press had called Michigan for Trump around 1 a.m. Wednesday? Trump's lead was actually bigger then ... about a full percentage point and maybe a little change on top of that. He's down to a 0.3% lead now.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Precedent doesn't mean anything.  We should be able to elect Obama for president again.  It's incredibly stupid that we deny ourselves the chance to elect whoever we want.
Click to expand...
Seriously?  You are literally the only person I've ever heard make this argument.

 
Insein said:
On an ideological level, yes you are correct. In reality, people in power stop caring about their constituents after time. You think Ted Kennedy or Robert Byrd still represented the people after being in office for over 40 years? Most of their constituents weren't even born when they started by their last term.  How could they claim to represent the people when the issues they started with (Cold War era) don't even equate to what was going on in the world towards the end?

Getting fresh ideas in there and less entrenched politicians is what we need. 12 years (2 term senator, 6 term House) should be enough to get whatever agenda you have done.
Click to expand...
It shouldn't matter what I think. It should matter what their constituents think. Substituting our collective judgment via broad, generally applicable rules or their right to choose their own Senators and congressmen goes against the basic principles of our system of government. 

If we're going to substitute national perspective for local perspective, why bother to have local elections for Senators and congressmen at all?  Let's just have national elections. Top 435 House candidates and Top 100 Senate candidates get in.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doug B said:
Clinton's been ~12,000 votes behind (out of about 2.7 million cast) since yesterday afternoon at 4 p.m. EST. The vote counts haven't changed since then, so I am not sure what's going on.

I thought the Free Press had called Michigan for Trump around 1 a.m. Wednesday? Trump's lead was actually bigger then ... about a full percentage point and maybe a little change on top of that. He's down to a 0.3% lead now.
Click to expand...
They called it yesterday.  He won by ~13,000 votes

 
Insein said:
On an ideological level, yes you are correct. In reality, people in power stop caring about their constituents after time. You think Ted Kennedy or Robert Byrd still represented the people after being in office for over 40 years? Most of their constituents weren't even born when they started by their last term.  How could they claim to represent the people when the issues they started with (Cold War era) don't even equate to what was going on in the world towards the end?

Getting fresh ideas in there and less entrenched politicians is what we need. 12 years (2 term senator, 6 term House) should be enough to get whatever agenda you have done.
Click to expand...
I've never understood this line of thinking.  If enough people don't want somebody in office they won't elect them.  Why vote to take away your right to vote?

 
TobiasFunke said:
I'm not an expert on lobbying laws and restrictions, which are the last three, but I can address these three.

1.  This will never be adopted. And it shouldn't.  Telling people who they can and cannot vote for is fundamentally undemocratic.  If I was lucky enough to live in a place that had Senators and a Congressman who could vote in Congress, why should I let people from another state tell me I'm not allowed to elect someone I want to elect?

2.  This is fine and certainly among Trump's "least bad" ideas. But its basically pointless. The non-military federal workforce has already been in decline for years- the overall expansion is due to post-9/11 activities.  And the savings are virtually nil- even if you drop 10% of the federal workforce and don't replace it with one out of outside contracting, the resulting savings are at most 0.5% of the annual budget  This article written after the Tea Party revolution election in 2010 explains most of this.

3.  This makes zero sense and betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of administrative law.  What counts as a "regulation" here?  A section of the Code of Federal Regulations?  A subsection?  A Final Rule as published in the Federal Register, which might contain a series of regulations?  This is the kind of thing someone says if they have never worked in government before and have no interest in learning how it works. It doesn't bother me that Trump wrote this, but it's somewhat troubling that there's nobody in his inner circle who could have corrected it.
Click to expand...
I think Trump is going to learn that politics is a lot different than running a business.  The people he will be dealing with in politics are not worried about getting fired because Donald says so.  Will be interesting to say the least in the next 4 years.  I just hope some good comes out of his Presidency.  

 
JIslander said:
... the article concedes we have a racist in the Whitehouse.
Click to expand...
FWIW, we have had many -- including the sitting President when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was past.

Ironically, probably about 80% or better of the Congressmen/Senators who approved that act were themselves racist in some manner. No proof, of course ... just spitballing a figure based on the prevailing notions among powerful white men in the 1960s.

 
avoiding injuries said:
Hillary just asked if she could rescind on her concession. 
Click to expand...
Nah ... Trump doesn't need Michigan now. Whether he gets 290 electoral votes or 306, it's all academic.

Interestingly, though, had Clinton won Florida ... the entire election would be hinging on Michigan's absentee/military vote counts right now. It would be a 261-261 tie with Michigan the deciding state.

 
Jayrod said:
Seriously?  You are literally the only person I've ever heard make this argument.
Click to expand...
It makes sense.  These are the Presidents that probably could have run for and won a 3rd term since that amendment.

Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, Obama.  Instead we got Kennedy, Bush, Bush and Trump.

Personally I think we'd have done better with the first 4 (although it's way to early to decide on Trump one way or the other).

 
Niles Standish said:
It makes sense.  These are the Presidents that probably could have run for and won a 3rd term since that amendment.

Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, Obama.  Instead we got Kennedy, Bush, Bush and Trump.

Personally I think we'd have done better with the first 4 (although it's way to early to decide on Trump one way or the other).
Click to expand...
I think Bush would have won a 3rd term. How would that have sat with you? Then again Clinton might have gotten a 3rd or 4th, that is of course if Reagan didn't get his 5th and 6th terms.

 
Insein said:
I think Bush would have won a 3rd term. How would that have sat with you? Then again Clinton might have gotten a 3rd or 4th, that is of course if Reagan didn't get his 5th and 6th terms.
Click to expand...
Bush's approval rating was very low and he was in the middle of a recession.  I'd be very surprised if he could have won another.  The Democrats won pretty handily in the 2008 election.  Truman had a similar problem a very low approval rating as did LBJ at the end or I'd have to think about including them.  Clinton might have had a hard time winning considering his scandals, but I kept him on the list because his VP almost won which I believe is partially a reflection on how people felt about Clinton's presidency towards the end even with his scandals.  Then again not sure if Clinton would be allowed to run again with the impeachment not really sure how that worked considering he stayed in office.

 
Doug B said:
We had the same idea ... I added that link to my last post on the previous page :hifive:

Final EV count looks to stand as Trump 306, Clinton 232. With Trump getting over 300, it will look like a healthy win in the history books.
Click to expand...
That really is an incredible total of EVs for Trump, given the pre-election mantra .

 
Niles Standish said:
It makes sense.  These are the Presidents that probably could have run for and won a 3rd term since that amendment.

Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, Obama.  Instead we got Kennedy, Bush, Bush and Trump.

Personally I think we'd have done better with the first 4 (although it's way to early to decide on Trump one way or the other).
Click to expand...
Kennedy's approval rating (70.1) was greater that Eisenhower's (65.0). Other than that I understand the premise of the post.

 
Niles Standish said:
Also surprising considering he lost the popular vote (or at least it looks like that at the moment).  Those are generally pretty close elections in the Electoral College.
Click to expand...
For comparison, the 2000 presidential election EV counts were Bush 271, Gore 266 (one DC elector abstained).

If you think about the 2016 popular vote, though, consider that Clinton won California by 2.5 million votes. If she had "only" won by, say, 2.2 million votes, Trump would have won the popular vote. But that's the political equivalent of removing a running back's longest runs in evaluating his quality as a player.

 
Niles Standish said:
Also surprising considering he lost the popular vote (or at least it looks like that at the moment).  Those are generally pretty close elections in the Electoral College.
Click to expand...
Yup.  There's always been this idea that the electoral college couldn't diverge that much from the popular vote.  I've never understood that. It's always seemed to me that the sample size of close-ish elections in the last century or so (since we've become a more diverse country with significant differences in state/regional demographics) is way too small to reach that conclusion.

 
Buzzbait said:
Kennedy's approval rating (70.1) was greater that Eisenhower's (65.0). Other than that I understand the premise of the post.
Click to expand...
True and they were both well before my time.  But he didn't have a long time as Pres.  So I think there's a good chance it could have dropped if he had a full 4 or 8 years.

 
Doug B said:
For comparison, the 2000 presidential election EV counts were Bush 271, Gore 266 (one DC elector abstained).

If you think about the 2016 popular vote, though, consider that Clinton won California by 2.5 million votes. If she had "only" won by, say, 2.2 million votes, Trump would have won the popular vote. But that's the political equivalent of removing a running back's longest runs in evaluating his quality as a player.
Click to expand...
Popular vote totals are still pending

 
TobiasFunke said:
I'm not an expert on lobbying laws and restrictions, which are the last three, but I can address these three.

1.  This will never be adopted. And it shouldn't.  Telling people who they can and cannot vote for is fundamentally undemocratic.  If I was lucky enough to live in a place that had Senators and a Congressman who could vote in Congress, why should I let people from another state tell me I'm not allowed to elect someone I want to elect?

2.  This is fine and certainly among Trump's "least bad" ideas. But its basically pointless. The non-military federal workforce has already been in decline for years- the overall expansion is due to post-9/11 activities.  And the savings are virtually nil- even if you drop 10% of the federal workforce and don't replace it with one out of outside contracting, the resulting savings are at most 0.5% of the annual budget  This article written after the Tea Party revolution election in 2010 explains most of this.

3.  This makes zero sense and betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of administrative law.  What counts as a "regulation" here?  A section of the Code of Federal Regulations?  A subsection?  A Final Rule as published in the Federal Register, which might contain a series of regulations?  This is the kind of thing someone says if they have never worked in government before and have no interest in learning how it works. It doesn't bother me that Trump wrote this, but it's somewhat troubling that there's nobody in his inner circle who could have corrected it.
Click to expand...
Agreed with all 3.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Yup.  There's always been this idea that the electoral college couldn't diverge that much from the popular vote.  I've never understood that. It's always seemed to me that the sample size of close-ish elections in the last century or so (since we've become a more diverse country with significant differences in state/regional demographics) is way too small to reach that conclusion.
Click to expand...
I resolve it by thinking of the U.S. as a republic and not a true democracy at the federal level. Just as a corroborating point: the U.S. also has no mechanism for national referenda -- nothing like Brexit could happen under the U.S. system.

...

Thinking about California's influence on the presidential elections some more: without California, Trump wins the EVs 306-177 and also wins the popular vote 51-49.

 
Doug B said:
FWIW, we have had many -- including the sitting President when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was past.

Ironically, probably about 80% or better of the Congressmen/Senators who approved that act were themselves racist in some manner. No proof, of course ... just spitballing a figure based on the prevailing notions among powerful white men in the 1960s.
Click to expand...
Yeah.  So we have gone back 50 years.  Progress.

 
Rove! said:
Popular vote totals are still pending
Click to expand...
Yeah, but I feel safe in assuming the remaining votes are going to pretty much come in 50-50 +/- a few percent either way ... they won't change the story. To me, Trump squeaking out a popular vote "win" by 20,000 votes is the same as Clinton winning same by 300,000 votes. I still regard it as essentially 50-50.

 
JIslander said:
Yeah.  So we have gone back 50 years.  Progress.
Click to expand...
Point was that social progress happens despite the positioning of racist persons in position of power. Societal changes wash over everyone: presidents, business moguls, doctors, lawyers, teachers, waitresses, ditch-diggers, junkies, etc.

 
Doug B said:
Point was that social progress happens despite the positioning of racist persons in position of power. Societal changes wash over everyone: presidents, business moguls, doctors, lawyers, teachers, waitresses, ditch-diggers, junkies, etc.
Click to expand...
How is electing a racist president "progress" in race relations?

 
What's most distressing here is that the 50 million people that voted for an outsider to clean up Washington (he said dredge the cesspool?) will now watch him select Washington insiders to fill key roles.  I will laugh and laugh at these people, then laugh some more.  In the rust belt region/heartland regions which clearly swung this election, I find it fascinating that johnny tractor and mary homemaker decided they feel an elitist, married 3x, with BK filings 4x, that owns a private jet and lives in a gold palace, who got a small loan of $1million from his dad, is gonna look out for their best interests.  When he doesn't build a wall and when he doesn't throw her in jail, what will his core base do?  When he doesn't repeal Obamacare, which is going to be tragically hard to entangle, what then?  You can't run this poisonous of a campaign and all of a sudden say "the election is over, now let's get to work".  This isn't occurring in a bubble.  What occurred during the election just can't be turned off with a key.  For those saying give him a chance, did he give Obama a chance?  No, he delegitimized his presidency for  8 years by using the birther argument (an obvious racial blow).  He said this election was rigged.  So many awful things to choose from, but he actually made fun of a handicapped reporter.  A 70 yr old adult running for president made fun at a rally of someone that is disabled.   I am no fan of Clinton either, but to me, I think the campaigns and rhetoric were clearly run differently.

2 out of the last 5 elections have seen a democratic majority and a republican president.   

Somehow, someway, this country needs to demand that good behavior return.  Everywhere, but especially going forward during presidential election cycles.  The world is watching and somehow I think they are laughing at us. 

 
Will be interestingseeing trump run as the president against a challenger in 2020 when he can't be the outsider with 4 years of failed and half accomplished promises. 

 
JIslander said:
How is electing a racist president "progress" in race relations?
Click to expand...
Didn't say that.

Succinctly: a racist president in 2016 can't roll societal progress back. Trump can't undo things ... he can't make American society today anything like American society of 60 years ago.

I don't know if racist people will ever totally go away -- tribalism is strong in human beings. However, racist people -- especially if they act publicly on their racism -- will continue to be marginalized more and more as time passes.

Trump, as the president-elect and soon-to-be the sitting president, may not deserve to be given a pass on any public racism that can be pinned on him. However, since he will soon be representing all Americans citizens, he should be evaluated and held accountable for what actual here-and-now damage he is doing to minorities. Personally taking money out of pockets, personally removing opportunities, personally revoking rights, and so on.

For some, Trump's election alone consititutes damage. I don't think we're at the point of damage, myself -- and I don't think Trump's reach as president is great enough to "reach into" areas where minorities will be harmed (cf. people who worried about "Obama/Hillary will take our guns!").

 
Chemical X said:
You can't run this poisonous of a campaign and all of a sudden say "the election is over, now let's get to work".
Click to expand...
Well, the work of government still has to get done, no matter who Trump has angered. If your point is that Trump's poisonous campaign will have after-effects that will hamper his presidency, I agree that makes sense.

 
Chemical X said:
What's most distressing here is that the 50 million people that voted for an outsider to clean up Washington (he said dredge the cesspool?) will now watch him select Washington insiders to fill key roles.  I will laugh and laugh at these people, then laugh some more.  In the rust belt region/heartland regions which clearly swung this election, I find it fascinating that johnny tractor and mary homemaker decided they feel an elitist, married 3x, with BK filings 4x, that owns a private jet and lives in a gold palace, who got a small loan of $1million from his dad, is gonna look out for their best interests.  When he doesn't build a wall and when he doesn't throw her in jail, what will his core base do?  When he doesn't repeal Obamacare, which is going to be tragically hard to entangle, what then?  You can't run this poisonous of a campaign and all of a sudden say "the election is over, now let's get to work".  This isn't occurring in a bubble.  What occurred during the election just can't be turned off with a key.  For those saying give him a chance, did he give Obama a chance?  No, he delegitimized his presidency for  8 years by using the birther argument (an obvious racial blow).  He said this election was rigged.  So many awful things to choose from, but he actually made fun of a handicapped reporter.  A 70 yr old adult running for president made fun at a rally of someone that is disabled.   I am no fan of Clinton either, but to me, I think the campaigns and rhetoric were clearly run differently.

2 out of the last 5 elections have seen a democratic majority and a republican president.   

Somehow, someway, this country needs to demand that good behavior return.  Everywhere, but especially going forward during presidential election cycles.  The world is watching and somehow I think they are laughing at us. 
Click to expand...
You think those things are bad, wait until he nominates a Goldman Sachs man as Treasury Secretary, which is coming.

Anyway, what they will do is what they've always done.  What they did when we discovered that his years long commitment to transparency was one-sided and he wouldn't even release his taxes. What they did when they discovered his image as a philanthropist was a complete fraud. What they did when we discovered that he sexually assaults women and brags about it.  They'll accept whatever flimsy excuse he offers and they'll move on. 

It is very hard for people to admit they've been taken in by a scam, they will go through incredible mental gymnastics to avoid having to confront it.  You know the guy who drops several hundred at the strip club and stumbles out at 3 AM convinced that Candi really does like him, though?  That's what it will be like.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bagger said:
Will be interestingseeing trump run as the president against a challenger in 2020 when he can't be the outsider with 4 years of failed and half accomplished promises. 
Click to expand...
He has a majority in the House and Senate.  I think there's a good chance he will get quite a bit done.  But it's unlikely to be all the outsider stuff.  Taking away healthcare will be difficult (and unlikely to happen),  so will term limits and that sort of thing.  It's going to most likely be the normal Republican agenda and I'm not sure that will help him get elected again in the rust belt.  That being said if the economy is good for another 4 years he will be reelected no matter what he does or says.

 
bagger said:
Will be interestingseeing trump run as the president against a challenger in 2020 when he can't be the outsider with 4 years of failed and half accomplished promises. 
Click to expand...
and who knows how many sex/financial/whatever scandals you know will be out there.

 
Niles Standish said:
He has a majority in the House and Senate.  I think there's a good chance he will get quite a bit done.  But it's unlikely to be all the outsider stuff.  Taking away healthcare will be difficult (and unlikely to happen),  so will term limits and that sort of thing.  It's going to most likely be the normal Republican agenda and I'm not sure that will help him get elected again in the rust belt.  That being said if the economy is good for another 4 years he will be reelected no matter what he does or says.
Click to expand...
If the only thing Trump accomplishes is term limits for congress, he'll go down as one of the greats.

 
Doug B said:
Didn't say that.

Succinctly: a racist president in 2016 can't roll societal progress back. Trump can't undo things ... he can't make American society today anything like American society of 60 years ago.

I don't know if racist people will ever totally go away -- tribalism is strong in human beings. However, racist people -- especially if they act publicly on their racism -- will continue to be marginalized more and more as time passes.

Trump, as the president-elect and soon-to-be the sitting president, may not deserve to be given a pass on any public racism that can be pinned on him. However, since he will soon be representing all Americans citizens, he should be evaluated and held accountable for what actual here-and-now damage he is doing to minorities. Personally taking money out of pockets, personally removing opportunities, personally revoking rights, and so on.

For some, Trump's election alone consititutes damage. I don't think we're at the point of damage, myself -- and I don't think Trump's reach as president is great enough to "reach into" areas where minorities will be harmed (cf. people who worried about "Obama/Hillary will take our guns!").
Click to expand...
This is where I'm at --that he got in there in the first place.  There's been a lot of race related regression going on in this nation over the last few years --this doesn't help IMO.

 
Kanil said:
If the only thing Trump accomplishes is term limits for congress, he'll go down as one of the greats.
Click to expand...
Maybe but I'm not sure having a majority in the House and Senate will help him put term limits on them.  There are Republicans who are already past the limit and likely want to stay in their spot.  I'd be surprised if they supported him.  Although you might get some Democratic support on term limits too.  But I'm not sure how helpful they will want to be to President Trump.  It's popular nationally so you might get it through the state path, but I'm not sure Democratic voters would want to help Trump accomplish anything.

 
Niles Standish said:
Maybe but I'm not sure having a majority in the House and Senate will help him put term limits on them.  There are Republicans who are already past the limit and likely want to stay in their spot.  I'd be surprised if they supported him.  Although you might get some Democratic support on term limits too.  But I'm not sure how helpful they will want to be to President Trump.  It's popular nationally so you might get it through the state path, but I'm not sure Democratic voters would want to help Trump accomplish anything.
Click to expand...
Put a grandfather clause on it and anyone currently in can stay in as long as they keep getting elected.

 
Doug B said:
We had the same idea ... I added that link to my last post on the previous page :hifive:

Final EV count looks to stand as Trump 306, Clinton 232. With Trump getting over 300, it will look like a healthy win in the history books.
Click to expand...
Imagine if Trump had lost Florida early.  Everyone would have turned off their TVs and gone to bed 100% sure of the outcome and then woke up to president Trump.  That would have messed with some people's minds.

 
Regarding the popular vote: is the following meaningful or instructive?

When Trump's and Gary Johnson's popular votes are counted together (59,704,886 + 4,072,835), you get 63,777,721 "conservative" votes. Doing the same for Clinton and Jill Stein yields 61,156,355 "liberal" votes (59,938,290 + 1,218,065).

While I believe that most of the Johnson vote was conservative "never Trumps" ... there were also like a good number of non-aligned voters that might have gone for a different Democratic candidate. So what happen if we keep all of Stein's Green Party votes under the liberal side of the ledger, and also add one-quarter of Johnson's votes to the Clinton/Stein count? We then get 62,759,512 "conservative" votes and 62,174,564 "liberal" votes.

Can't get much more "dead heat" than that.

 
Democrats have promised, for 30 years, to be a party that is willing to help the inner cities and black communities yet there seems to be an even greater divide between minority communities and the majority white population regarding economic welfare.  If he succeeds in returning median wage, skilled jobs that can be done without 4 year degrees I have a feeling that he will have a positive impact on the black population and potential that race relations will improve.

I think it's fascinating that Trump won the election promising to return manufacturing and light industrial jobs to disaffected white workers, yet those jobs actually had a much bigger impact on the urban and inner-city blacks than they ever did on urban and rural whites. 

 
Kanil said:
If the only thing Trump accomplishes is term limits for congress, he'll go down as one of the greats.
Click to expand...
He had no intention of getting term limits.  That was just a sales gimmick.

[Senate majority leader Mitch] McConnell also talked about some of the differences he and Trump had throughout the campaign. He said the Senate will not discuss term limits on member of Congress at all, a position Trump advocated strongly during his "Drain the Swamp" pitch. He also mentioned that the US will not break away from NATO, issuing this warning to Russia in particular: "If you attack any member of NATO you have us to deal with."
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Eephus
Desert Island "Discs" Draft (2010-2019) - We Did It
26 27 28
Replies
1K
Views
35K
rockaction
rockaction
Dr. Octopus
In this thread I rank my favorite Rolling Stones songs: 204-1: Four Musketeers Get Their Ya-Yas Out
18 19 20
Replies
952
Views
32K
Dr. Octopus
Dr. Octopus
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
191K
Pip's Invitation
Pip's Invitation

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top