The General American Politics Thread

[Patticus]

18 minutes ago, Kuzu the Boloedge said:

And to think...Hilary's entire career of politics and credentials doesn't mean a goddamn thing in the face of hypocrisy.

I shudder to think how long it'll be before we see another candidate of her caliber, who also happens to be a woman. A once in a generation opportunity, squandered in a fit of childish rage.

[Kuzu]

4 minutes ago, Patticus said:

I shudder to think how long it'll be before we see another candidate of her caliber, who also happens to be a woman. A once in a generation opportunity, squandered in a fit of childish rage.

It really just calls the whole system into question; we always promoted that anyone can make it in America...I don't think we ever considered that anyone could be someone like Donald Trump or the fact that his blatant poor presidential attitude was still voted in by people.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

Kanye West to run as president in 2020. Today we will all laugh and laugh....

Then comes 2020 and Kanye's a presidential candidate vs. Trump.

The world has gone crazy folks. From now on, I'm not going to trust what YOU guys say, what the polls say or even my OWN instincts.

Brexit now this.

[PSI Wind]

Well, I feel sick obviously but I went through my stages of grief. So, where now? Well, the good news is that even WITH a Republican majority in the gov't, Trump is still hated by them all, so as long as he's not impeached and given the job to Pence, it might not be so bad. We also have the house vote in 2018 so not too long to see if we can't change things.

[MadmanRB]

Okay I think its time for me to announce I am now going to run for president of the united states (hoping there is a country still in 2020)

If a nutjob like Trump can do it so can I.
I am mentally ill, never ran for any office before, I am unemployed, I never studied law.
And I am making my cat my vice president

Yeah my prospects are looking sweet 

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

So apparently  Hillary is in the running to win the popular vote despite losing the electoral vote. 

Oh my,  this sounds awfully familiar .

 

[8ther]

Are the chances of impeachment and the 2018 midterm election a silver lining to all this?

[MadmanRB]

Well it is her right to do so, as it would be anyones really.

[Mad Convoy]

56 minutes ago, PSI Wind said:

Well, I feel sick obviously but I went through my stages of grief. So, where now? Well, the good news is that even WITH a Republican majority in the gov't, Trump is still hated by them all, so as long as he's not impeached and given the job to Pence, it might not be so bad. We also have the house vote in 2018 so not too long to see if we can't change things.

You make a good point-- unfortunately, whether they like him or not, a lot of the Repubs actually agree with Trump on stuff like LGBT+ issues, which could pose a problem as they'd vote for legislation that removed protections for LGBT+ rights or even worse, actually helped oppress LGBT+ with allowing conversion camps and the like (which are easy to vote for if you disapprove of homosexuality and don't know/purposefully remain ignorant on what they actually entail). Sexism and racism is also rampant in the US political system at large, and it may just become more blatant as a result of Trump's executive orders and law proposals. Which, surprisingly, can do good things-- there's a chance that, due to being presented unsubtle evidence to the contrary, people will finally stop claiming that we don't need feminism anymore, that the civil rights movement ended in the 1960s and completely eradicated racism, and that we don't really need to worry about LGBT+ now that gays can marry, and thus actually help womens', PoC, and LGBT+ causes. But unfortunately its going to be a rough ride for people who aren't rich white men for a long time.

[Patticus]

 

I feel so ill at that thought...

 

8 minutes ago, Jovahexeon the Sapphire said:

So apparently  Hillary is in the running to win the popular vote despite losing the electoral vote. 

Oh my,  this sounds awfully familiar .

Democrats gon' be pushing for the abolition of the electoral college at this rate.

[Tani Coyote]

45 minutes ago, CD Sanic said:

Are the chances of impeachment and the 2018 midterm election a silver lining to all this?

Just the midterm.

It will be an uphill battle though: the only Republican seat the Democrats could safely pick up would be Nevada. If they have really good turnout, they could take Arizona.

At the same time, the Democrats have to keep 2 or 3 seats that are in Republican strongholds like Montana. To do that, Trump's going to have to be REALLY awful, and not just meh.

These are the seats and their incumbents up for election in 2018. The Democrats are in for a rough ride, as they have to play defense. Fortunately, barring Trump doing a spectacular job, it's likely a lot of the blue states he managed to flip are going to flip back.

Honestly, if there's anything that should be done in between now and then, is get instant runoff voting on the ballot. The huge amount of dissatisfaction from both sides of the aisle, plus the third parties, combined with the shock at the Trump Presidency should be enough to make us revisit our electoral system. If we get instant runoff voting, we will never have to deal with horseshit like this ever again.

[Patticus]

Wasn't instant runoff voting up on the ballot in Maine? Not sure if that one passed or got shot down, but it looked possible.

Also 2018 isn't looking very hopeful for crippling Trump now.

[Tani Coyote]

11 minutes ago, Patticus said:

Wasn't instant runoff voting up on the ballot in Maine? Not sure if that one passed or got shot down, but it looked possible.

It passed, actually! There are some constitutional concerns (Maine constitution) about it, but it doesn't sound like it will be an issue.

I'm hoping one good thing from this election will be it exposing how broken it is. Beyond the talk of racism and all the like, the simple fact is a lot of people felt repulsed by both candidates for one reason or another and either didn't vote or protest voted. Unfortunately, it looks like protests ultimately ruined Clinton more than Trump.

If we can get instant runoff on a ton of ballots in time for the 2018 midterms, we could make serious inroads. Never again will a Democrat, Republican, or independent have to vote against their conscience when it comes to choosing our leader.

11 minutes ago, Patticus said:

Also 2018 isn't looking very hopeful for crippling Trump now.

It really boils down to how things are going. If we're lucky and the economy takes a dive, for example, it probably won't bode well for Mr. Make America Great Again.

One thing is for certain - the Democrats, if they can't flip a few Senators on a regular basis, need to obstruct the GOP the same way they obstructed Obama. Turnabout is fair play!

[Patticus]

22 minutes ago, Noelgilvie said:

It passed, actually! There are some constitutional concerns (Maine constitution) about it, but it doesn't sound like it will be an issue.

I'm hoping one good thing from this election will be it exposing how broken it is. Beyond the talk of racism and all the like, the simple fact is a lot of people felt repulsed by both candidates for one reason or another and either didn't vote or protest voted. Unfortunately, it looks like protests ultimately ruined Clinton more than Trump.

If we can get instant runoff on a ton of ballots in time for the 2018 midterms, we could make serious inroads. Never again will a Democrat, Republican, or independent have to vote against their conscience when it comes to choosing our leader.

Oh, that's great news!

Hopefully, people will be as dissatisfied by President Trump (*Violent horse noises in background*) as they were Obama, and there will soon be a movement (if there isn't one already) to put IR on the ballot nationwide. Given that the Libertarian and Green parties could benefit hugely from it (I assume?), I hope they work diligently to get it done.

Quote

It really boils down to how things are going. If we're lucky and the economy takes a dive, for example, it probably won't bode well for Mr. Make America Great Again.

One thing is for certain - the Democrats, if they can't flip a few Senators on a regular basis, need to obstruct the GOP the same way they obstructed Obama. Turnabout is fair play!

The economy will probably hit another rocky patch before 2018, and how Trump reacts will be critical in how fast it gets resolved, as well as determining how people take it. Nobody knows what kind of president he'll actually be, and that uncertainty has driven stock markets into a nosedive - if we don't know how he might react to a shaky economy, that could really exacerbate whatever rockiness comes our way.

I have to say though, after 6 years of bitching about Republican obstructionism, and their attempts to derail the country and the economy via obstructionism and government shutdowns, I'm not sure I'm all that comfortable being on the side that needs to do just that to get back into the public's good graces. Feels like hypocrisy. Congress's approval ratings have been through the floor for years now, too - would Democratic obstructionism not hurt them the same way? Worry worry worry.
 

Voting stats:

Trump - 59,096,015 votes
Clinton - 59,248,753 votes

It's not quite Florida, 2000, but that 152,738 vote difference is very, very close. It's not much of a consolation prize for Hillary, poor woman, but at least the Democrats can chip away at his presidency's legitimacy over time with it - even tie him to Dubya if they feel like it.

Exit poll breakdown. A lot of it is as we always expected, but I didn't expect that Clinton's lead among women would be so thin, 

 

Ominous omen for the superstitious: Today is the 78th anniversary of Kristallnacht. 

[Tornado]

On 8/30/2012 at 3:10 PM, Tornado said:

No offense, but Hilary Clinton would be borderline unelectable if she actually made it to the end of the race and was on the ballet for the top job. There are people (a substantial amount, it should be said) in the Democrat Party who hate her so much that they would sooner vote Republican than vote for her (and that goes in the opposite way, too) and she would never swing moderate votes unless the Republican candidate had Gingrich levels of ineptitude.

On 8/30/2012 at 3:26 PM, Tornado said:

Hilary has hardcore Hilary supporters and supporters who she aligns with on certain issues, but she is a hard ass on everything she gets behind and she always has been. That's why when Obama won the primaries there was a major threat from the ones who campaigned for her up to that point splitting the election on purpose (I actually think that was the thing that the 2008 Election thread that was around here before the server wipe was started about, if I recall correctly). She could basically be viewed as the U.S. version of Thatcher, if she was to be compared to anyone (though not on her views, obviously).

Now, as far as voter pathology goes, some of it (how much depending on who you ask) actually comes from all the way back when the Lewinsky thing broke, as ridiculous as that sounds, because a fairly popular sentiment (especially when she announced she was running for Senate before Bill even finished his second term) was that she used the entire thing purely to further her political career since Bill was going to leave office soon. The rest of it comes from the fact that she scares a lot of people, justified or not; and a decade or so of serial-numbers-filed-off versions of her in the media hasn't made that go away.

If she was going to run for President and make it all the way to the end, she would have to choose a damn good VP who could both appeal to moderates and make it clear that he would actually have some effect on her presidency. Which the former wouldn't be that hard, but the latter would be tough to convince people about.

 

Maybe it's time the DNC (and the GOP too, but they won so they probably don't realize that they didn't really win) stops relying political machines.

[Mad Convoy]

3 minutes ago, Patticus said:

I have to say though, after 6 years of bitching about Republican obstructionism, and their attempts to derail the country and the economy via obstructionism and government shutdowns, I'm not sure I'm all that comfortable being on the side that needs to do just that to get back into the public's good graces. Feels like hypocrisy. Congress's approval ratings have been through the floor for years now, too - would Democratic obstructionism not hurt them the same way? Worry worry worry.

To be fair, obstructing attempts at removing human rights is in a whole different league morally to obstructing attempts at better enforcing and protecting human rights. But in terms of economic reform, I think it would be harmful in a similar way. Of course, the question of the day is, is the consequences of said obstruction worse than whatever Trump is trying to push through? At this point, we really don't know, but I can venture a guess that the answer is no.

---

As I see, this indicates that the Electoral College system needs to be adjusted. How long has it been since it changed? Not in awhile, right? There have been radical shifts in demographics recently and gradual shifts throughout the years, meaning that some states are becoming more densely populated and thus worthy of more electoral votes while others are becoming less densely populated and thus need to have their electoral votes reduced. I sometimes question if we need an electoral college anymore-- back in the founding fathers' day, it made sense to have such a system as it was hard to catch fraud and reliably tally popular votes from thousands of people by hand. But now we have electronic devices that can tally much more reliably than a human and which are easier to check for and track voter fraud. Not to mention that when going by popular vote, there is never any worry about having to make adjustment for population and demographic shifts in different counties like the electoral college. In this day and age, it could make more sense to go by popular vote rather than an electoral college.

[Candescence]

Just a question, how likely is it that the GOP will be able to use the "nuclear option" to get rid of the filibuster? The matter of willingness is one matter, but whether they can actually do it is another - I've heard conflicting things about whether they need a simple majority or a supermajority (the latter of which the GOP doesn't and won't have).

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

4 minutes ago, Mad Convoy said:

As I see, this indicates that the Electoral College system needs to be adjusted. How long has it been since it changed? Not in awhile, right? There have been radical shifts in demographics recently and gradual shifts throughout the years, meaning that some states are becoming more densely populated and thus worthy of more electoral votes while others are becoming less densely populated and thus need to have their electoral votes reduced.

Just to recap the last few elections affected by such.

Bush beat Gore strictly by electoral college votes and that led his 4 years of shenanigans.

Meanwhile, Obama for his two terms didn't even need the electoral college since he won in popular votes as well, landslide style.

And now, here we are again, screwed over by the electoral college, for trump's sake!

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

Clinton lost Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. She shouldn't have lost those. She had zero BUSINESS losing those. Stop defending her very poor campaigning. She underestimated Trump and his support. Her fault in the end.

[Patticus]

Ohio has been trending more and more right-wing these past 3 elections. Pretty soon, it's not going even to be considered a battleground state any more.

Pennsylvania and Michigan should never have been lost, though, you're right there. However, I don't think she could have taken them without a populist running mate - a Sanders or Warren type - due to the unusually strong resonance of Trump's populist message.

[Tornado]

The electoral college isn't going anywhere. It's in place to give states some sort of proportional representation in the presidential election. If the proportions need to be adjusted that's another matter entirely, but a straight popular vote would basically just guarantee that no mind is paid to anything of importance that isn't in the New England-ish area or the West Coast.

8 minutes ago, Patticus said:

Pennsylvania and Michigan should never have been lost, though, you're right there. However, I don't think she could have taken them without a populist running mate - a Sanders or Warren type - due to the unusually strong resonance of Trump's populist message.

She could have attempted to campaign there. Trump spent half of the election, regardless of if it had any truth to it, talking to manufacturing and industrial areas. Directly pandering to regions of the country that, not to fall into repeating Trump talking points, Democrats had comfortably won for several elections in a row and promptly did little with. NBC said other than Pennsylvania she stopped in most rust belt states once or twice over the entire year.

[Patticus]

6 minutes ago, Tornado said:

The electoral college isn't going anywhere. It's in place to give states some sort of proportional representation in the presidential election. If the proportions need to be adjusted that's another matter entirely, but a straight popular vote would basically just guarantee that no mind is paid to anything of importance that isn't in the New England-ish area or the West Coast.

Then why not make the electoral college itself proportional, instead of winner takes all? All or most states will become battlegrounds in that scenario, and campaigns will actually have to be about the whole country, rather than the 7 or 8 states deemed most important.

Quote

She could have attempted to campaign there. Trump spent half of the election, regardless of if it had any truth to it, talking to manufacturing and industrial areas. NBC said other than Pennsylvania she stopped in most rust belt states once or twice over the entire year.

Michigan Democrats were on the phone to Brooklyn for months, practically begging Clinton to seriously campaign up there. The campaign ignored them, their polling data missing what only became very obvious last night.

 

Here we go...

[Meta77]

Rofl anyone afraid of the kkk is silly. They have been for the past 20 years in my view a joke . Most young people were not even born in their main stray.

Regardless it's over. Pick yourself up and hope for the best honestly

[Mad Convoy]

21 minutes ago, Meta77 said:

Rofl anyone afraid of the kkk is silly. They have been for the past 20 years in my view a joke . Most young people were not even born in their main stray.

Regardless it's over. Pick yourself up and hope for the best honestly

Actually, concerns are justified. Sure, the KKK isn't taken seriously now, but if emboldened it could go back to the violence that characterized its behavior in the past. Its not going to go immediately to lynching, but given enough time and encouragement, it could very well wean back into using extreme tactics like torture and executions, or even more subtle tactics like voter fraud, to make its point and become a major terrorist force once more. The fact that most young people weren't born in their prime can actually serve as a benefit for KKK recruitment, since they have no memories of the effects of the destruction and hate wrought by the group and may not be willing to take a lesson from history on the matter.

The last thing we need is more hatred. Plus, can you imagine KKK vs ISIS conflicts? Not fun for anybody, especially those caught in the crossfire.

[KHCast]

So now people are finally discussing the concerns LGBT citizens have and well...people are essentially telling up to get the fuck over it, say there's nothing to worry about(despite evidence from both Trump and Pence AND the GOP saying otherwise), there's no need to concern about rights being infringed on(lol), and using the ever popular "gay marriage is a states issue" to justify repealing it. Aren't people great. I sure feel better about being gay in a conservative all red country.