Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-28-2019, 07:43 PM
bengangmo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 9,731

Null Hypothesis = Democrats are wrong, Why is that?


When reading these boards, and looking at American attitudes in general, there seems to be this idea that Democrats are "wrong" and need to earn votes. When something bad happens in politics, it always seems to be the fault of the democrats, whether because their strategy was wrong, they didn't try hard enough, they were not united enough or whatever else.

Two recent examples in elections
* Is there a democratic candidate for POTUS I can support?
* So where did the democrats go wrong?

Instead of asking "Where did the democrats go wrong" - why is the question not more along the lines of
* why is the American electorate so easy to hoodwink?
* How did the Republicans trick / cheat / manipulate their way to power?

Instead of assuming no Democrat is worthy of support, or the Democrat must, for some reason, entice voters away from the Republican, why is the question not more along the lines of
* how can liberal gun laws co-exist measures to reduce gun violence?
* How do I get rid of Trump while maintaining strong 2nd amendment protections

I may be wrong here, but it generally seems that the starting position is always "Republicans are Right" - and it is harder to get people to move / change from this default.
  #2  
Old 11-28-2019, 08:24 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,797
Generally, the party that is not in power is, by default, considered to be the party in need of change. After 2012, for instance, many pundits were analyzing the Republican defeat and what the GOP needed to do to stay relevant, with many suggesting that if there weren't reform in its immigration party plank, that the GOP was doomed.

If Democrats win in 2020, the narrative mentioned in the OP will immediately be, "What did Republicans do wrong and need to change before 2024?"
  #3  
Old 11-28-2019, 08:29 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,797
Edit: Another reason is that registered Democrats outnumber registered Republican voters by about 12 million. When one party has that big of a built-in advantage to begin with, it's natural to ask what went wrong that caused them to lose. It would be like a soccer team of twelve men going up against a team of just nine, and the twelve-man team losing - the analysts would ask why.


(Yes, the GOP has the advantage of the Electoral College, but even then, Democrats usually have to fumble the ball in some way in order to lose.)
  #4  
Old 11-28-2019, 08:42 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by bengangmo View Post
When something bad happens in politics, it always seems to be the fault of the democrats, whether because their strategy was wrong, they didn't try hard enough, they were not united enough or whatever else.
That's because a majority of the posters lean towards the Democrats.

When the Philadelphia Eagles lose, the local commentators don't typically say that the opposition played unusually well. Instead they usually say that we played poorly.

Likewise, if the Eagles, AKA "we", win, it's because the Philadelphia quarterback made fewer mistakes -- and not because the opposition failed to take advantage of his mistakes.

Can someone use google to find exceptions? Yes. But usually people will think that their own side makes their fate.
  #5  
Old 11-28-2019, 08:42 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by bengangmo View Post
When reading these boards, and looking at American attitudes in general, there seems to be this idea that Democrats are "wrong" and need to earn votes. ...
Velocity makes some good points, but in addition: in recent years, we've learned a lot about the effect on elections of gerrymandering and vote-suppression tactics. These have been primarily (though not exclusively) employed by Republicans.

So there's an assumption that the party that needs to refine or improve its message to voters, or that would even be interested in refining or improving that message, is the Democratic party. And that's because the Republicans aren't focused on message; they're focused on tactics (that keep some people from voting). The implication is that Republicans don't need to change their outreach or their candidates or their platform, but that Democrats might need to change all those things.
  #6  
Old 11-29-2019, 03:32 AM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Velocity makes some good points, but in addition: in recent years, we've learned a lot about the effect on elections of gerrymandering and vote-suppression tactics. These have been primarily (though not exclusively) employed by Republicans.

So there's an assumption that the party that needs to refine or improve its message to voters, or that would even be interested in refining or improving that message, is the Democratic party. And that's because the Republicans aren't focused on message; they're focused on tactics (that keep some people from voting). The implication is that Republicans don't need to change their outreach or their candidates or their platform, but that Democrats might need to change all those things.
Reminder: HRC won ~3 million more votes than than DJT but lost the White House because our system, a relic of slavery, allows installation of losers, as do gerrymanders. Yes, the game is rigged. How will shapeshifting the Dem party fix that?
  #7  
Old 11-29-2019, 11:33 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Reminder: HRC won ~3 million more votes than than DJT but lost the White House because our system, a relic of slavery, allows installation of losers, as do gerrymanders. Yes, the game is rigged. How will shapeshifting the Dem party fix that?
Didn't stop Barack Obama from winning. Twice.

The Democrats are perceived as being "wrong" because they blew it so badly in 2016 that they've branded themselves as fuck-ups on a collective party level.
  #8  
Old 11-29-2019, 12:26 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,355
Dems are the party that is taking responsibility for the future of the country. Rebups are selling the future for gains that are on an even shorter time scale than "near term."

No good deed goes unpunished.

The dems are wrong because they are suckers who are playing the game by the rules. They are rubes and they are always going to have a hard time on message boards, which are tribal and triumphal. They are the country in miniature and everybody wants to talk about their failures.
  #9  
Old 11-29-2019, 07:21 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
Didn't stop Barack Obama from winning. Twice.
He got lots and lots of votes, many more than the opposition. Tramp did not.

Quote:
The Democrats are perceived as being "wrong" because they blew it so badly in 2016 that they've branded themselves as fuck-ups on a collective party level.
"They blew it so badly" because a 3-million vote majority didn't overcome massive GOP-engineered disenfranchisement and suppression, right? Don't forget Mr Comey's funny last-minute notes. This makes Dems "wrong", how? Because unlike Tramp they didn't conspire with enemy foreign agents to violate federal election laws? Because they don't threaten ethnic cleansing of US citizens to a brainwashed base?

What is your recipe for Dems to correct their "wrongness"?
  #10  
Old 11-29-2019, 07:45 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
The dems are wrong because they are suckers who are playing the game by the rules.
OK.

Now I have to imagine what rules the Democrats need to break.

How about:

When Hillary lost, she should have refused to concede. Obama then could have used his power as commander in chief to install her in the White House.

Or maybe you realize that most military members voted for Trump, so that might not be it.

How about some ethnic slurs. Say Trump is partly black.

I don't think that's it. Seems a little too twentieth century.

Maybe Hillary could have make something of Trump and Roy Cohn having been best buds. Say he marries the trophy wives to hide his real desires.

Or the Democrats could promise free health care with no co-pays, and lower taxes except for billionaires. I don't think it will poll well, but, heck, it does break some economic rules.

I'm waiting to see what lies, or phoney promises, you come up with that are going to sound worse to middle America than DJT's actual words.
  #11  
Old 11-29-2019, 07:53 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Yes, the game is rigged. How will shapeshifting the Dem party fix that?
The Democrats win about half the time, and the Republicans win about as often. That is not the look of a rigged game.
  #12  
Old 11-29-2019, 08:56 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Reminder: HRC won ~3 million more votes than than DJT but lost the White House because our system, a relic of slavery, allows installation of losers, as do gerrymanders. Yes, the game is rigged. How will shapeshifting the Dem party fix that?
Shapeshifting the Dem party (or 'working on the message') has the potential to win so many more votes than the GOP will get, that the Democrats can attain enough power to work on changing the Electoral College and other rigged-system relics.


Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Dems are the party that is taking responsibility for the future of the country. Rebups are selling the future for gains that are on an even shorter time scale than "near term."
No good deed goes unpunished.

The dems are wrong because they are suckers who are playing the game by the rules. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyGuy View Post
OK.
Now I have to imagine what rules the Democrats need to break. ...
No rule-breaking is required of Democrats, because the incentive-to-vote is powered differently for Democrats than it is for Republicans.

Trump-era Republicans are motivated to vote by Trump's implicit promise that they can be like him: above the law. So long as they pledge him their fealty, he will make sure they pay no price for lying, cheating, stealing, and worse. Trump is appealing to sociopaths who believe that 'rules are for suckers' and that he will enable them to do exactly as they please all the time, just as long as they bow down to him. They are eager to vote for this outcome.

Democrats are motivated to vote by a belief that rules help humans work cooperatively, and working cooperatively is not only satisfying, but the best way to raise everyone's standard of living. Idealism? Sure. But for non-sociopaths, that's a powerful incentive to get out and vote. If you believe that honor and decency and integrity are actual things---and not just empty words that people use to manipulate each other, a belief common among sociopaths---then you respond to calls for honor and decency and integrity. Millions of people fall into that category. For Democrats to become lawless mockers of rule-following (as Trumpublicans are) would be to give up all those votes.



By the way, I'm not claiming that everyone who voted for Trump is a sociopath, nor am I claiming that no registered Democrat is a sociopath. (Obviously there must be some.)

I'm merely pointing out the broad appeal of each party. Republicans appeal to those who believe that Winning is Everything (a sociopathic position). Democrats appeal to those who believe in teamwork and empathy.

For Democrats to embrace lying and cheating would be futile, because they'd lose the votes of those who prefer the usual Democratic philosophy, while failing to gain the votes of the Trumpublicans (who want Trump).
  #13  
Old 11-30-2019, 09:42 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,525
In the south a lot of older people are still registered as Dems but almost never vote for a Dem except for some local offices. They don't bother to change their registration because it does not matter in the general election.
  #14  
Old 11-30-2019, 08:32 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyGuy View Post
The Democrats win about half the time, and the Republicans win about as often. That is not the look of a rigged game.
When majority power is taken with a minority of votes, the game is rigged.
When voters are disenfranchised or suppressed, the game is rigged.
When legislators gerrymander districts, the game is rigged.
Without free and fair elections, the game is rigged.
When losers are installed, the game is rigged.
  #15  
Old 11-30-2019, 11:19 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Generally, the party that is not in power is, by default, considered to be the party in need of change. After 2012, for instance, many pundits were analyzing the Republican defeat and what the GOP needed to do to stay relevant, with many suggesting that if there weren't reform in its immigration party plank, that the GOP was doomed.

If Democrats win in 2020, the narrative mentioned in the OP will immediately be, "What did Republicans do wrong and need to change before 2024?"
A good point.

Success validates itself. A lack of success is what needs to be explained.
  #16  
Old 12-01-2019, 11:27 AM
Yankees 1996 Champs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 145

Democrats need to run a moderate American


They need to run someone who can win the Midwest and the Sun Belt. They need to dump the SJW stuff or they will lose.
  #17  
Old 12-01-2019, 12:40 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by bengangmo View Post
Two recent examples in elections
* Is there a democratic candidate for POTUS I can support?
* So where did the democrats go wrong?

Instead of asking "Where did the democrats go wrong" - why is the question not more along the lines of
* why is the American electorate so easy to hoodwink?
* How did the Republicans trick / cheat / manipulate their way to power?
1) Amy Klobuchar who interestingly enough is a victim of the "likability penalty" by the Dems themselves.
2) By not running/nominating people that people want to vote for meaning people that actually have a personality. H. Clinton, Biden, Warren, Sanders. The most presidential is Klobucher and because of that she is losing. Why? See #1.
3) It started back with Bill Clinton. The electorate elected Slick Willy (a known slime bucket) and said we don't care if you outright lie to us OR to a Court. Then you had GW Bush who people elected saying we don't need a President - we need a good ol' boy (which started with Clinton's election). You don't need a diplomat, you need a President you can have a beer with. Even with Obama's election - McCain was vastly more Presidential than the inexperienced Obama but you could relate to Obama. He was a cool guy to hang out with wasn't he - not like your grandfather John.
So what did we have in 2016? Hillary Clinton which Dems refuse to admit was a candidate that many people voted against against Trump who "told it like it was was" which many people said they wanted in a politician for decades.
4) Continue #3 - Combine this with Trump realizing that the Electoral College votes for the President and it is not a nationwide popular vote and viola you now have President Trump. Despite you poisoning the well with how you phrase the question, Republicans did not trick / cheat / manipulate their way into power. They won elections. One could argue that with gerrymandering and the lack of any real proportional voting by district (for the House and 2 state EVs) or by state as per EVs that the system is fundamentally broken but that is the system that the Pubs and Dems have agreed to so that one of them will always remain in power. Sometimes it's D, sometimes it's R but it is always one of them.

I'm curious, why did you not ask "How did the Democrats trick / cheat / manipulate their way to power in 1976 and in 2008?"
__________________
When I was a boy, a mere lad, A FAERIE APPEARED UNTO ME AND TOLD ME I WOULD BE BOTH POPE AND KING! But … I am a bastard. And a pretender.

-Richard Hariss

Last edited by Saint Cad; 12-01-2019 at 12:41 PM.
  #18  
Old 12-01-2019, 12:43 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
When majority power is taken with a minority of votes, the game is rigged.
When losers are installed, the game is rigged.
You may want to learn how Presidential Elections are run in the United States. Hint: it's not a nationwide popular vote.
  #19  
Old 12-01-2019, 12:49 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Reminder: HRC won ~3 million more votes than than DJT but lost the White House because our system, a relic of slavery, allows installation of losers, as do gerrymanders. Yes, the game is rigged. How will shapeshifting the Dem party fix that?
If that's the game, how come Hillary barely campaigned in
Wisconsin
Michigan
Pennsylvania

Choosing instead to campaign in states that she had already clinched. If you play a low pair in poker and lose all your money overplaying them, do you say the game is rigged because your opponent played it right?
  #20  
Old 12-01-2019, 01:19 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
They need to run someone who can win the Midwest and the Sun Belt. They need to dump the SJW stuff or they will lose.
I disagree. They need to show up hard. SJW realy just means stuff we already have been working on a long time, over a hundred years now: income inequality, race, climate.

We going to turn backwards now? Oh yeah...I see that working real well... I guess if we get a big enough police force?

Lets see if the ones who pine for the older times in america don't start dropping off (attritionally) in a cycle or two and some progress can be intitated.
  #21  
Old 12-01-2019, 01:24 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
1) Amy Klobuchar who interestingly enough is a victim of the "likability penalty" by the Dems themselves.
2) By not running/nominating people that people want to vote for meaning people that actually have a personality. H. Clinton, Biden, Warren, Sanders. The most presidential is Klobucher and because of that she is losing. Why? See #1.
3) It started back with Bill Clinton. The electorate elected Slick Willy (a known slime bucket) and said we don't care if you outright lie to us OR to a Court. Then you had GW Bush who people elected saying we don't need a President - we need a good ol' boy (which started with Clinton's election). You don't need a diplomat, you need a President you can have a beer with. Even with Obama's election - McCain was vastly more Presidential than the inexperienced Obama but you could relate to Obama. He was a cool guy to hang out with wasn't he - not like your grandfather John.
So what did we have in 2016? Hillary Clinton which Dems refuse to admit was a candidate that many people voted against against Trump who "told it like it was was" which many people said they wanted in a politician for decades.
4) Continue #3 - Combine this with Trump realizing that the Electoral College votes for the President and it is not a nationwide popular vote and viola you now have President Trump. Despite you poisoning the well with how you phrase the question, Republicans did not trick / cheat / manipulate their way into power. They won elections. One could argue that with gerrymandering and the lack of any real proportional voting by district (for the House and 2 state EVs) or by state as per EVs that the system is fundamentally broken but that is the system that the Pubs and Dems have agreed to so that one of them will always remain in power. Sometimes it's D, sometimes it's R but it is always one of them.

I'm curious, why did you not ask "How did the Democrats trick / cheat / manipulate their way to power in 1976 and in 2008?"
Gerrymandering and voter suppression based on race are not cheats?

When did Dems agree to this? How have they benefitted from them?
  #22  
Old 12-01-2019, 01:27 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
You may want to learn how Presidential Elections are run in the United States. Hint: it's not a nationwide popular vote.
Correct! These days it's an internationwide vote, and some voters are more equal than others. And the inters are more equal still.
  #23  
Old 12-01-2019, 01:34 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
If that's the game, how come Hillary barely campaigned in
Wisconsin
Michigan
Pennsylvania

Choosing instead to campaign in states that she had already clinched. If you play a low pair in poker and lose all your money overplaying them, do you say the game is rigged because your opponent played it right?
The russians interfered in the election. Hillary didn't know that any more than we did at the time. So you don't have any idea how Hillary team saw and decided stuff in the moment. You know about hindsight, but even then, your particular hindsight needs to also ignore the corruption of the whole election by anti democratic foreigners.

tronp winning had zero to do with playing the game right. after all he was colluding in public with those anti-democrats.
  #24  
Old 12-01-2019, 01:35 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Gerrymandering and voter suppression based on race are not cheats?
Name one state that Trump won and Clinton lost for these reasons?

And do you disagree that Clinton ran a poor election that did not take into account the Electoral College or at best did not campaign in certain states through complacency - states she later lost?
  #25  
Old 12-01-2019, 02:02 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Name one state that Trump won and Clinton lost for these reasons?

And do you disagree that Clinton ran a poor election that did not take into account the Electoral College or at best did not campaign in certain states through complacency - states she later lost?
Name one state my ass. The only thing we know is that the russians have got our electoral system in their power. How the hell are we talking about hrc? What on earth point is there to be made?

To pontificate about the failures of someone who we were no wiser than? Only righties pushing the overton window care about this shit.

The election was tainted. I know this is hard to take. But it's true. This means no more hrc bashing. You got to grow up. There is no time for it.

All of the rants about hrc are in service of propping up a tainted election which has humilated the US in the eyes of the world.

The actual story is that we got taken for suckers, and that the suckers keep going for the hrc story.
  #26  
Old 12-01-2019, 03:44 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
You may want to learn how Presidential Elections are run in the United States. Hint: it's not a nationwide popular vote.
That's right, it ain't. Thus are vote-losers installed. The will of the people? Ha.

You live in Colorado? Your vote is worth less than a Wyoming voter's. It's easy to calculate - divide a state's population by it electoral votes. For Colorado it's ~585k people per EV. In Wyoming it's ~195k each, the nation's most valuable per capita. 585/195= 3 so you in Colorado are heavily discounted. The most worthless votes? California at almost 700k.

Our presidential electoral system was built with black slaves, who outnumbered whites in Southern states, counted as fractional people in order to persuade slaveowners, who naturally wanted to retain their power, to join the Union. The consequence: The astounding advantage the Electoral College gives to Republicans - In close elections, Republicans are favored to win even when they lose the popular vote.

The game is rigged. Even assuming we trust the vote counts. As Stalin allegedly said, "It's not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes." How transparent are vote tabulation procedures nationwide? How else is the game rigged?
  #27  
Old 12-01-2019, 04:39 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
You may want to learn how Presidential Elections are run in the United States. Hint: it's not a nationwide popular vote.
It is endlessly tiresome when people respond to "this system isn't right" by saying "but this is the system". It serves no purpose but to gloat. It would be refreshing if you'd just admit "I'm glad my vote counts 3 times what yours does, and I don't particularly care that it's unequal.

And speaking directly to the OP, the gloating really is the point. There is a species of crypto-conservatives who pose as reasonable centrists and enjoy spending their time in a fantasy where Democrats approach them on bended knee to beg for the opportunity to admit they were wrong on guns/Obama/"the SJW stuff"/whatever.

This fantasy is especially potent when Democrats are out of power. As the OP correctly observed, when the shoe is on the other foot, these guys aren't lecturing Republicans on how to earn their vote, because their "centrism" is just an attention-seeking performance.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 12-01-2019 at 04:42 PM.
  #28  
Old 12-01-2019, 04:48 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,342
In the last election, Democrats had no problem with the electoral college, because they thought it favored them. Remember the 'blue wall'? It was a collection of states thought to be heavily favored for Clinton, and therefore she had the electoral college sewn up. Commentary on election night was that even if Trump somehow won the popular vote, Clinton would be protected by her 'blue wall' and would win the Electoral college.

It was only when Trump broke through her 'blue wall' and won in the EC that Democrats suddenly discovered that the electoral college was an outdated instrument of racism or something.

Last edited by Sam Stone; 12-01-2019 at 04:49 PM.
  #29  
Old 12-01-2019, 04:55 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
In the last election, Democrats had no problem with the electoral college, because they thought it favored them. Remember the 'blue wall'? It was a collection of states thought to be heavily favored for Clinton, and therefore she had the electoral college sewn up. Commentary on election night was that even if Trump somehow won the popular vote, Clinton would be protected by her 'blue wall' and would win the Electoral college.

It was only when Trump broke through her 'blue wall' and won in the EC that Democrats suddenly discovered that the electoral college was an outdated instrument of racism or something.
I've been in favor of a national popular vote for as long as I can remember. So have most Democrats that I know. This appears to be a straw man.
  #30  
Old 12-01-2019, 04:58 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
In the last election, Democrats had no problem with the electoral college, because they thought it favored them. Remember the 'blue wall'? It was a collection of states thought to be heavily favored for Clinton, and therefore she had the electoral college sewn up. Commentary on election night was that even if Trump somehow won the popular vote, Clinton would be protected by her 'blue wall' and would win the Electoral college.

It was only when Trump broke through her 'blue wall' and won in the EC that Democrats suddenly discovered that the electoral college was an outdated instrument of racism or something.
In the real world the fact that trnep won is a very good argument for the reform of the ec.

I don't know what you mean by "they never had a problem. There has always been a systemic problem with it, and it lately has become a danger to the republic.
  #31  
Old 12-01-2019, 05:25 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
In the last election, Democrats had no problem with the electoral college, because they thought it favored them. Remember the 'blue wall'? It was a collection of states thought to be heavily favored for Clinton, and therefore she had the electoral college sewn up.
There is no cognitive dissonance in saying "this system is wrong, but since we have to play this game, here's our strategy." And the strategy was working pretty well until Comey dropped the turd in the punchbowl regarding a bullshit investigation in which Clinton was ultimately cleared of wrongdoing. But you already know that.

Quote:
Commentary on election night was that even if Trump somehow won the popular vote, Clinton would be protected by her 'blue wall' and would win the Electoral college.
This didn't happen, because as conservatives are keen on gloating, nobody needs "protection" from the popular vote, because the popular vote doesn't matter. But you already know that.

Quote:
It was only when Trump broke through her 'blue wall' and won in the EC that Democrats suddenly discovered that the electoral college was an outdated instrument of racism or something.
This is a joke or selective memory or both, but opposition to the EC has gone back a long way. Here is a 2004 article from the New York Times that mentions it, though it goes back further.

In every Presidential election since 1992, more Americans have voted against Republican candidates than for them. Their policies are unpopular and their candidates are unpopular. Of course Republicans love the inequality of the EC, without it, they either have to court the majority or get shut out of power forever. But you already know that.
  #32  
Old 12-01-2019, 05:55 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
In every Presidential election since 1992, more Americans have voted against Republican candidates than for them.
2004.
  #33  
Old 12-01-2019, 06:11 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,875
The following are my hypotheses to try to fit the data and I’m not claiming them as facts.

I look at years like 2008 and 2012 as baseline years. When we get results like 2010 or 2016, my initial reaction is to blame overly idealistic liberals. Basically I think a large enough portion of Democratic voters have a “perfect is an enemy of the good” type of attitude. Ralph Nader voters in Florida in 2000. Jill Stein voters in WI, MI, and PA in 2016. All the people who showed up in 2008 but stayed home in 2010 that effectively hamstrung Obama for the last six years of his presidency (and the same for Clinton in 1994). Those voters need to get over themselves and realize they can’t always get everything they want. If the choice is between a hamburger and a shit sandwich they shouldn’t stay home just because steak isn’t an option.
  #34  
Old 12-01-2019, 07:56 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
If that's the game, how come Hillary barely campaigned in
Wisconsin
Michigan
Pennsylvania
You are correct about Wisconsin. Clinton didn't go there, and, unlike almost everywhere else, Trump substantially outspent her on advertising.

Michigan was a state where Clinton outspent on ads. I can't find visit numbers for there.

But Trump and Clinton campaigned in Pennsylvania eighteen times each, with Clinton outspending Trump the usual 2-1 on advertising.

Sources:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/analysi...nt-their-time/

https://adage.com/article/campaign-t...V-radio/306496


I quit the GOP, in early 2016, in disgust over my party being taken over by populists and (often the same) Tea Party types. But if I was a Trump supporter, the story I would keep hammering is that DJT lost despite being outspent 2-1. Instead, you imply that if voters in the three critical states had equally heard what both candidates had to say, they would have gone for the Democrat. This doesn't show much confidence in your messaging.

My worry, as a (newish) Democrat is that, this time, the GOP will be the big spenders.
  #35  
Old 12-02-2019, 02:28 AM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 721
I've another response to "a US presidential election is not a nationwide popularity contest". No, it's not. Except for some ballot measures requiring supermajorities, every other election held in the US *IS* a popularity contest. Whatever or whomever gains 50%+1 of votes, wins. It's called democracy. Republicans unhappy with democracy may be happier in China, a REALLY YUGE! republic.

As I cited in post #26, the GOP now enjoys a built-in electoral advantage. "In the modern period, Republicans should be expected to win 65% of Presidential contests in which they narrowly lose the popular vote." Which means Dems, but not Gops, need supermajorities of popular votes to prevail. That's a rigged game.

Three (R) deuces beat four (D) aces - to win, (D) needs FIVE aces! Isn't dealing and playing poker like that hazardous to one's health?

How can (D) player do right? Attain superpowers, I guess. And Russian backing.
  #36  
Old 12-02-2019, 06:26 PM
gatorslap is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
In the last election, Democrats had no problem with the electoral college, because they thought it favored them. Remember the 'blue wall'? It was a collection of states thought to be heavily favored for Clinton, and therefore she had the electoral college sewn up. Commentary on election night was that even if Trump somehow won the popular vote, Clinton would be protected by her 'blue wall' and would win the Electoral college.

It was only when Trump broke through her 'blue wall' and won in the EC that Democrats suddenly discovered that the electoral college was an outdated instrument of racism or something.
Democrats never stopped having a problem with the electoral college after 2000. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact was voted on (or killed in committee) in the majority of states during Bush's second term. I clearly remember it being vetoed by The Governator.

The "blue wall" was merely an assumption that Hillary would win decisively, including winning the popular vote. I don't remember anyone claiming that if the election got really close, Hillary would be likely to retain the EC and lose the popular vote. It was always the case that if there was a split between the two, it would be more likely for Trump to win the EC and Hillary to win the popular vote, than the reverse.

The closest we got to the Democrat winning the EC and losing the popular vote was in 2004. If Kerry had won Ohio, which was very close, he would have been elected and still lost the popular vote. But that path was not open to Hillary in 2016. In 2004, Bush won 44% of the Latino vote, swept the interior Southwest, and ran a huge margin in Texas. In 2016, Trump was clearly not courting the Latino vote or the Southwest. Hillary thus gained a lot of 'useless' votes in California and Texas, which everyone predicted. That's an awful lot of votes that Trump would have to gain elsewhere in order to win the popular vote, period. Where does Trump make up those votes? Maybe with a massive victory in the Upper Midwest, but then where does Hillary gain more electoral votes from? It just doesn't map out in any realistic way.
__________________
The mind is a terrible thing to taste.
  #37  
Old 12-02-2019, 06:50 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
...Ralph Nader voters in Florida in 2000. Jill Stein voters in WI, MI, and PA in 2016. All the people who showed up in 2008 but stayed home in 2010 that effectively hamstrung Obama for the last six years of his presidency (and the same for Clinton in 1994). Those voters need to get over themselves and realize they can’t always get everything they want. If the choice is between a hamburger and a shit sandwich they shouldn’t stay home just because steak isn’t an option.
I agree, and I hope we'll all be on the lookout for people (and the bots people program) trying to sell the 'vote only for someone who inspires you' and 'vote only for someone who will represent all your views' and of course 'vote only for the perfect candidate because if you vote for someone lesser, you are sullying your soul' messages.

Both the Kremlin and the GOP will be paying people to sell these ideas. And lots of useful idiots will broadcast and amplify those ideas for free, too.

All are intended to depress voting by Democrats.
  #38  
Old 12-06-2019, 11:49 AM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post

I'm merely pointing out the broad appeal of each party. Republicans appeal to those who believe that Winning is Everything (a sociopathic position). Democrats appeal to those who believe in teamwork and empathy.
Ah, yes, Trump's electoral success is due to pandering to the "Sociopath Vote" which, according to the DSM-5, has a prevalence of .2% to 3.3%
  #39  
Old 12-06-2019, 02:06 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Ah, yes, Trump's electoral success is due to pandering to the "Sociopath Vote" which, according to the DSM-5, has a prevalence of .2% to 3.3%
You can't reductio this out of existence. The Rs as a party are exhibiting psychopathology. I think they are getting it from fox, with whom they conduct a circular information producing system, and a spiral of bad and perverse effects.
  #40  
Old 12-06-2019, 02:13 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,355
nm

Last edited by drad dog; 12-06-2019 at 02:14 PM. Reason: dupe
  #41  
Old 12-06-2019, 05:59 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
You can't reductio this out of existence. The Rs as a party are exhibiting psychopathology. I think they are getting it from fox, with whom they conduct a circular information producing system, and a spiral of bad and perverse effects.
Well said (and I can't better this as an answer to Ashtura). Not every Trump voter would receive a clinical diagnosis according to the Manual, of course. But every Trump voter is being encouraged to embrace a sociopath-friendly world view--chiefly by FoxNews, as you point out, and by other entities that successfully sell to those who want to believe they are Victims of those Awful Dark People and Awful Elites. Voters who want to believe that if they give deference to Trump then they can do exactly as they please ('laws are for other people') are embracing a sociopath-friendly world view.

The politics of resentment is a cash cow, as it turns out. Those people will buy "collectible coins" and survival gear and plastic straws and angry-message t-shirts, all of which have massive profit margins. Those people are astonishingly easy to manipulate.
  #42  
Old 12-06-2019, 06:25 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Those people will buy "collectible coins" and survival gear and plastic straws and angry-message t-shirts, all of which have massive profit margins. Those people are astonishingly easy to manipulate.
Except, apparently, by Democrats.
  #43  
Old 12-06-2019, 06:36 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Except, apparently, by Democrats.
Well, Democrats aren't telling them that they are in danger of being killed and robbed by caravans. Democrats aren't telling them they are the naturally-superior race-and-religion and that all those Other People need to be kept in line. Democrats aren't telling them that those snooty educated people who look down on them for their ignorance are Bad and Wrong. Democrats aren't telling them that if they vote correctly, their Magnificent Selves will at least receive the deference and respect they deserve.

So....yeah. Democrats aren't making much headway with FoxNews viewers.
  #44  
Old 12-06-2019, 07:12 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Well, Democrats aren't telling them that they are in danger of being killed and robbed by caravans. Democrats aren't telling them they are the naturally-superior race-and-religion and that all those Other People need to be kept in line. Democrats aren't telling them that those snooty educated people who look down on them for their ignorance are Bad and Wrong. Democrats aren't telling them that if they vote correctly, their Magnificent Selves will at least receive the deference and respect they deserve.

So....yeah. Democrats aren't making much headway with FoxNews viewers.
Well, yeah; they’re not saying any of that stuff to make much headway with ‘em; but they’re also not making much headway with ‘em by saying other stuff. You figure that these people are astonishingly easy to manipulate, but I just want to make sure I get your point; the Democrats aren’t making much headway with the folks you think are “astonishingly easy to manipulate”: not with Tactic A — like you said — but also not with any Tactic B or C or whatever, right?

If they’re not just easy to manipulate, but astonishingly easy to manipulate, then shouldn’t there be some tactic that the Democrats could — uh, easily? — put to good use against the Astonishingly-Easy-To-Manipulate crowd?
  #45  
Old 12-06-2019, 07:26 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Well, yeah; they’re not saying any of that stuff to make much headway with ‘em; but they’re also not making much headway with ‘em by saying other stuff. You figure that these people are astonishingly easy to manipulate, but I just want to make sure I get your point; the Democrats aren’t making much headway with the folks you think are “astonishingly easy to manipulate”: not with Tactic A — like you said — but also not with any Tactic B or C or whatever, right?

If they’re not just easy to manipulate, but astonishingly easy to manipulate, then shouldn’t there be some tactic that the Democrats could — uh, easily? — put to good use against the Astonishingly-Easy-To-Manipulate crowd?
Can I just interject that "easy to manipulate" is not a full workable description of our problem.

A little context...

"Easy to manipulate for authoritarian messaging" might work. Don't they hate democrats? Dems are not going to engage in the strategies on display on the other side of the aisle.
  #46  
Old 12-06-2019, 08:50 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Well, yeah; they’re not saying any of that stuff to make much headway with ‘em; but they’re also not making much headway with ‘em by saying other stuff. You figure that these people are astonishingly easy to manipulate, but I just want to make sure I get your point; the Democrats aren’t making much headway with the folks you think are “astonishingly easy to manipulate”: not with Tactic A — like you said — but also not with any Tactic B or C or whatever, right?

If they’re not just easy to manipulate, but astonishingly easy to manipulate, then shouldn’t there be some tactic that the Democrats could — uh, easily? — put to good use against the Astonishingly-Easy-To-Manipulate crowd?
As drad dog intimated "astonishingly easy to manipulate" does not imply "by means that Democrats would be willing to employ." It implies that means exist to manipulate the FoxNews audience without much effort---it implies nothing about who would be willing to make use of those means.

As it turns out, sellers of gold coins and other 'collectibles' that are 'certain to increase in value' are quite willing to employ the particular means in question. ('The Bad People will crash the economy and then you will need these valuable items for barter!')

The same is true for those pro-authoritarian political hopefuls who seek the votes of the FN viewers: getting those votes is trivially---even astonishingly---easy, once particular scare-tactics are deployed. ('The Caravans are Coming! They will steal your stuff then kill you, or maybe the other way around! Only a strong man like me can protect you!')

So, sure: astonishingly easy to manipulate, by particular means that some are willing to utilize--and some are not willing to utilize.
  #47  
Old 12-06-2019, 09:37 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,355
Also the right hate liberals. To frame the question of "Why don't liberals try to manipulate conservatives" without factoring in that hate, and how it gets motivated, is just disingenuous.
  #48  
Old 12-06-2019, 10:20 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
So, sure: astonishingly easy to manipulate, by particular means that some are willing to utilize--and some are not willing to utilize.
How bad would things have to get before they’ll be willing, do you think?
  #49  
Old 12-06-2019, 10:39 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Also the right hate liberals. To frame the question of "Why don't liberals try to manipulate conservatives" without factoring in that hate, and how it gets motivated, is just disingenuous.
I’m figure I’m pretty far to the right — conservative on some issues, and downright reactionary on others. But I of course wouldn’t say that I hate liberals, and so I of course wouldn’t say I’m being disingenuous; I’m just being sincere, is all, just like how I have no trouble figuring Sherrerd was being equally sincere in framing the manipulation or lack thereof as a question of willingness.
  #50  
Old 12-07-2019, 01:52 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I’m figure I’m pretty far to the right — conservative on some issues, and downright reactionary on others. But I of course wouldn’t say that I hate liberals, and so I of course wouldn’t say I’m being disingenuous; I’m just being sincere, is all, just like how I have no trouble figuring Sherrerd was being equally sincere in framing the manipulation or lack thereof as a question of willingness.
So you aren't that thing, so there is nothing to see or think about?

It's not about you anecdotally. The right hates liberals all over the place: in here, on tv, on the internet, in the mouths of politicians. I'm glad you don't hate liberals but that is statistically insignificant at this point.

One measure of the hate for liberals in our country, that you can see easily, is the whinging and complaining and obvious projecting, by rebuplikans about how the dems supposedly "hate" turnp. Where the hell did that word come from? THe dude has been self impeaching for 3 years. No one fucking hates him. The right hates liberalism and is using that hate to dismantle the government, which is legally enjoined to advance the interest of all americans and not just white ones.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017