This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
This is a place I won't go because I'm not sure it's true. Our political system (and the way it's approached by the politicians) doesn't have a place for the popular vote. I am not comfortable saying that the reason Democrats are winning the popular vote is because their policies are more popular. We don't know that. I'm not even sure policy factors into general elections all that much.....especially after this last election.
Gerrymandering is a legitimate problem, but it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with why Democrats have lost governorships, senate seats, and the electoral college. If you want to talk about gerrymandering in the context of the HOR and state legislatures, knock yourself out.
Unless there is a nearly uniquely charismatic candidate like Obama or Reagan, they certainly do.
We just emerged from the most policy-free election since 1988, and it also featured the two least charismatic candidates since, well, 1988. Your hypothesis is refuted.
I don't think it is.
88- Happy with Reagan, no new taxes.
Come on now man. He campaigned on empty sloganeering and "lock her up." And Hillary campaigned on "I'm not that other idiot." It was a complete fiasco without any hint of actual policy involved.So, not really policy proposals as much as "we'll make things better!", then? In other words, POTUS elections have virtually nothing to do with actual policies.
Well, to the extent that gerrymandering gave the Republicans solid control of state legislatures in states like, say, North Carolina. Then the state legislatures could use their power to affect the voting rights of its citizens, making it more difficult for racial and ethnic and economic sub-groups to vote in their state. Thereby giving the state's presidential nod to the Republican candidate.
you're wrong
This is just a side note... but I think the Democrats fell into this a long time ago by advocating for 'black' districts, state and federal. By insisting on black representation for black voters what happened eventually is the GOP said 'fine, we'll take that deal' and large blocks of Dem voters got squeezed out of mixed districts, into their own, and basically what is left are demographically largely GOP electorates. The GOP surrenders a handful of safe Democratic seats but in return they get additional districts of their own. It's too late now but I think this was not very far sighted.
That's fine, call it that if you want.
In 92 Clinton campaigned on middle class tax CUTS, supertrains, 100 k new cops and the recession brought on by Reagan bush bank deregulation that was already ending and healthcare
Using your definition of policy, I'd have to disagree here too. I think they very much need to change one major thing. That is, don't ignore Wisconsin and Michigan. They continue to do that, they will have problems getting another President appointed.
Of course you don't -- you're a Republican at heart so the Republican-Lite schtick resonates with you. But this isn't about you individually; it's about why working class voters this cycle voted directly counter to their financial self interest and elected a reality TV buffoon who will work to further increase wealth inequality in this country.
Eh, what would that accomplish? The House wouldn't exactly roll out the red carpet for Hillary if given the chance. This recount stuff is all just noise IMO.
Yes I would like at least one party to stay reasonably centrist. The Republican Party has moved far to the right, now the Democratic Party is moving far to the left (except on the issue of trade where they are currently uniting towards a nationalist and, IMO, ill thought out posture.)
Yeah me too. I find myself offering old arguments.
Eh, Hillary was a weak candidate. Her policy positions weren't rejected, she was, on a personal level, because she was pretty obviously full of ####. The worm will turn, and probably pretty quickly, too, when the dopes that voted for Trump figure out that he's actually just a repackaging of the same old Republican trickle-down nonsense. Things aren't going to get any better for rural working class America if Trump is just a front man for Ryan's and Pence's economic agenda, which seems pretty likely.
1. Agreed, terrible candidate. Disliked across the board. Personal all time dislike/unfavorable ratings.
Welcome. Sorry we missed you last time around, hope the apocalypse doesn't delay the next election.
That's what I was hearing. If it goes to the house it is going to be the same result. Not sure what there is to gain by doing this. To "say" Donald didn't get 270? Seems bizarre.
The top tax rate went from 35% back to 39.6%, and the top long term capital gains rate from 15% to 20%. That's more than zero. There's also been a ton of stuff on the tax regulatory side that many are wondering if they will get reversed.
Agreed, as uniquely unqualified as Trump is/was, many closed their eyes to how uniquely disqualified and unqualified HRC was. Her term is a senator was below average at best. Her term as SoS was worst I can remember. Her issues with failing basic security measures proved her dangerous to trust with national secrets. Her dishonesty, disregard for the law, the truth etc disqualifying as chief of law enforcement or a leader...top it off with a lack of charisma...I'd say negative charisma because the more she appeared in public, the less liked she was and you have truly bad candidate
So far, Hillary continues to confirm everyday that I voted for the better candidate.
I still blame you for us ending up with Trump. All those people you listed as "crazy" warned you what would happen if Hillary was nominated. I'm impressed you posted the above, but I'm fairly certain you haven't fully realized the damage you did to this country with your overly zealous and completely blind support of Hillary.timschochet said:
Lots of people did the same thing, not just Tim. Many of them in California. They just had no idea that anyone thought differently than they did about Clinton - having never encountered a Trump supporter, they couldn't conceive of what one was. Or is. Those of us who are blue voters in red states desperately tried to explain what was going on, but of course we're idiots who don't know what we're talking about. As usual.
Hi Tim, don't be depressed. Here is a funny story to cheer you up.timschochet said:
This sounds ridiculous, but it's pretty much true. I guess I have few relatives that posted some pro-Trump stuff on Facebook, but they don't live near me and I don't really talk to them and I'm not sure they're hardcore Trump supporters anyway. I have no personal interaction with any Trump supporters at all. We might as well be on different planets.
The same can be said that Trump supporters can't conceive a HRC supporter. I've discussed this election at great lengths with my hard core Trump loving brother and we were (and remain) very far apart on politics. It's as if we live on separate planets. In fact, we do. I realized a lot when I went back to western PA for Thanksgiving. Everything (I.e. Infrastructure) is falling apart. Homes are aging, as not many have the resources to maintain them. Roads are in poor shape. Small towns are impacted by heroin, including where I grew up. It amazes me just how much things have changed. I live in the second highest home value / avg income area in central Ohio. Kid is in private school, and my career is financially lucrative with many options. It's a different planet, for sure.
I just learned today that my FIL voted for Trump. And I'm under the working assumption that my parents did too, although we haven't discussed it and I have no plans to bring it up. Otherwise, I know literally zero people outside of this forum who have acknowledged voting for Trump. And I'm a right-winger, albeit one who works in a very left-leaning occupation.
Whole thing is worth it for the end comment about the consequence.
