View Poll Results: Who do you blame/credit for Trump's 2016 victory?
Donald Trump 3 2.13%
Trump voters 42 29.79%
Fox News 2 1.42%
Hillary Clinton 21 14.89%
Republican Party/RNC 4 2.84%
Democratic Party/DNC 10 7.09%
Russia 7 4.96%
Backlash against changing America 13 9.22%
Political correctness (or backlash against PC) 2 1.42%
Electoral College 5 3.55%
Stay-at-home/3rd-party voters 12 8.51%
Comey 7 4.96%
The economy 1 0.71%
Bernie (or Bernie supporters) 2 1.42%
Other 10 7.09%
Voters: 141. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-07-2018, 03:41 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 11,863
Who do you blame/credit for Trump's victory? (short/succinct poll)

Hopefully the last such thread on the well-hashed topic, since it has been well over a year and a half since the election in November 2016 but I can't recall a poll on this.


Just a short poll-and-answer thing.
  #2  
Old 07-07-2018, 04:33 PM
Tastes of Chocolate Tastes of Chocolate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: slightly north of center
Posts: 4,610
You missed "All of the above". There wasn't one person or group or even responsible. It was a whole pile of things.
  #3  
Old 07-07-2018, 04:37 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,847
I blame it on the fact that so few "liberal" educated types fail to realize that they sound like Big T to the average person.
__________________
I am a guest
  #4  
Old 07-07-2018, 04:42 PM
enipla enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 12,513
If I have to pick one, it is of course people that voted for Trump.

The knowledge of what a crooked piece of scum he is has been out there for years.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #5  
Old 07-07-2018, 04:44 PM
betonbill betonbill is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 13
Well, the Russian influence certainly helped a little.
  #6  
Old 07-07-2018, 04:48 PM
Tamerlane Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tastes of Chocolate View Post
You missed "All of the above". There wasn't one person or group or even responsible. It was a whole pile of things.
Yeah, I'm not even sure I could pick out what I would consider the biggest reason. You could legitimately check all or almost all of that list and it is less a collection of entrees on a menu than it is a jumbled up stew
  #7  
Old 07-07-2018, 04:51 PM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 28,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tastes of Chocolate View Post
You missed "All of the above". There wasn't one person or group or even responsible. It was a whole pile of things.
I wouldn't agree with 'all of the above' but I would agree with 'many of the above'. Perhaps the poll might be reset as a multiple answer poll?
  #8  
Old 07-07-2018, 04:53 PM
naita naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 5,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
I blame it on the fact that so few "liberal" educated types fail to realize that they sound like Big T to the average person.
I'm surprised most "liberal" educated types realize they sound like Big T. Almost as surprised I am that most "liberal" educated types even know who Big T is.
  #9  
Old 07-07-2018, 04:58 PM
BeenJammin BeenJammin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 351
Worded as what do you blame "the most..." -would be telling if enough people respond.
  #10  
Old 07-07-2018, 05:02 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 11,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeenJammin View Post
Worded as what do you blame "the most..." -would be telling if enough people respond.
Yeah I should have added "most"
  #11  
Old 07-07-2018, 05:09 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by naita View Post
I'm surprised most "liberal" educated types realize they sound like Big T. Almost as surprised I am that most "liberal" educated types even know who Big T is.
Maybe I should have used the term self described liberals? I don't know if that really conveys the right meaning either though. It's a little difficult these days to speak in broad terms and accurately describe political groups. But there is a group, generally attached to the Democratic side, that tends to moralize the way the Republican Evangelicals used to. And they are very annoying to a lot of people and seem to lack a certain self-awareness. They go further than the politicians do - professional politicians tend to be more measured, but they are sort of creating this thing in the minds of people that is irritating and people just want it to go away, or at least take a shower or something.
__________________
I am a guest
  #12  
Old 07-07-2018, 05:38 PM
E-DUB E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,787
You have whos and whats in the same poll. Makes it hard to choose. I picked "stay-at-home voters", but was torn between that and Comey and a couple of other choices.
  #13  
Old 07-07-2018, 06:23 PM
Lamoral Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 1,775
I absolutely blame the DNC/Hillary. As I have posted before: If someone leaves the door to your house open and a bear gets in and fucks everything up, who do you really get angrier at? The bear, or the person who left the door open?
  #14  
Old 07-07-2018, 06:33 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 10,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
I absolutely blame the DNC/Hillary. As I have posted before: If someone leaves the door to your house open and a bear gets in and fucks everything up, who do you really get angrier at? The bear, or the person who left the door open?
In my view Clinton and DNC tried to win. They worked hard to win. I'm not sure what they should have done differently, in your view. Maybe they made some mistakes, but hindsight is 20/20.

Clinton wasn't my all time favorite candidate (I didn't support her in 2008 primaries, for example) but she was qualified, on message, and had concrete, well thought out policies. Therefore, I blame the voters who rejected her more than her and the DNC for Trump. A significant number of voters wanted to fuck things up. That's disgusting (and deplorable).

Another significant number of voters stayed home, thinking they didn't have to show up for Clinton, because no country in it's right mind would elect someone like Trump. So they could smugly vent their "she's not perfect" attitude and refuse to vote for her, secure in their view that it wouldn't matter and she'd win anyway. How'd that work out?
  #15  
Old 07-07-2018, 07:57 PM
Bone Bone is offline
Arbitrary and Capricious
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,100
Moderating

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
I blame it on the fact that so few "liberal" educated types fail to realize that they sound like Big T to the average person.

BigT
has not been a participant in this thread and introducing him in this fashion is bordering on being a jerk. If you want to take a shot at other posters, especially those that haven't participated in the thread - the Pit is the place to do so.

[/moderating]
  #16  
Old 07-07-2018, 10:42 PM
enipla enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 12,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
I absolutely blame the DNC/Hillary. As I have posted before: If someone leaves the door to your house open and a bear gets in and fucks everything up, who do you really get angrier at? The bear, or the person who left the door open?
. I donno. As barely luke warm as Hillary was, it's been sadly discovered that Trump voters are out there. It seems like they have been waiting to vote for any piece of shit just like him for a long time.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #17  
Old 07-07-2018, 11:30 PM
Robot Arm Robot Arm is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 22,695
Trump voters. If the power in a democracy ultimately derives from the voters, then the blame belongs with them as well.
  #18  
Old 07-07-2018, 11:35 PM
Lamoral Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 1,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
. I donno. As barely luke warm as Hillary was, it's been sadly discovered that Trump voters are out there. It seems like they have been waiting to vote for any piece of shit just like him for a long time.
Human beings from every generation and every culture on earth are susceptible to bad ideas. What's going on now is unsettling but it's nothing compared to how it was in the past. There used to be horrific wars over very petty religious differences, there were all kinds of brutal cults that gained thousands of followers or even controlled entire countries, even very advanced countries (the Mayans and Aztecs - Jesus, can you imagine having to live in those times?) People stabbed each other and hacked each other to pieces with all kinds of axes and spears and daggers, within living memory there were whole countries controlled by ideologies that were so collectively dangerous that America had to drop nuclear bombs on them...this is nothing, dude. This isn't even as bad as the political division in the 1960s, from what I've heard from many people who were hippies or activists back then. People fall under the sway of bad ideas all the time and in every place. It doesn't turn the people into evil goblins or something, it just means bad ideas are bad ideas.
  #19  
Old 07-08-2018, 04:46 AM
JohnT JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 19,961
Well, given the singleton nature of the voting options, Donald Trump is to blame/deserves credit for him winning, right? Had he not run, then we would not have this poll.

Last edited by JohnT; 07-08-2018 at 04:47 AM.
  #20  
Old 07-08-2018, 08:29 AM
DigitalC DigitalC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 10,372
I don't know how people can give a single answer to this. Hillary lost by a small handful of votes in three states, absolutely everything in that list made a difference and a hundred other things on top. From Comey's letter to the weather on election day, a tiny little push in the other direction and we would have escaped this nightmare.
  #21  
Old 07-08-2018, 09:09 AM
naita naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 5,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
Maybe I should have used the term self described liberals?
I was more surprised at your "few fail to realize they sound dumb", but if that is what you actually meant ...
  #22  
Old 07-08-2018, 09:27 AM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 19,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
I absolutely blame the DNC/Hillary. As I have posted before: If someone leaves the door to your house open and a bear gets in and fucks everything up, who do you really get angrier at? The bear, or the person who left the door open?
I do hold a slight grudge against whoever think it's great that there's a bear in the house even though it'll destroy everything, shit everywhere, and quite possibly kill everyone, because he thinks it's funny to see his family members get upset.
  #23  
Old 07-08-2018, 09:36 AM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 20,289
I blame Facebook. I believe there is a significant segment of voters that get most of their news from Facebook memes. These memes are generally full of lies that can be easily debunked, but for some reason they cannot be reached by logic. Many of these memes are overtly racist, and the rise of the Donald has lit the smoldering kindling of racism in the US, empowering them to come out from under the logs where vermin live and getting energized to vote.

Secondly, I blame Hillary. She is the only Democrat capable of losing to him. It isn't fair, but people just don't like her. She simply couldn't overcome over 30 years of smears.
  #24  
Old 07-08-2018, 10:23 AM
Flyer Flyer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
In my view Clinton and DNC tried to win. They worked hard to win. I'm not sure what they should have done differently, in your view. Maybe they made some mistakes, but hindsight is 20/20.?
What they could have done, but didn't, was pay attention to Bill Clinton. In my opinion, he is the most talented politician of his generation. He warned the campaign that they needed to pay more attention to the Rust Belt, but he was ignored.

Quote:
Former President Bill Clinton's warnings to speak to swing voters fell on deaf ears during Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, according to the authors of "Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign," a new book about purported dysfunction in the campaign team.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/shat...ry?id=46974506

Quote:
It wasn’t just one mistake that sealed Clinton’s fate. But if there was one mistake that stands out above all the others, it is the decision by the campaign to ignore the warnings of one Bill Clinton. One odd detail that crops up again and again in the various postmortem pieces about Hillary Clinton’s campaign is the decision to ignore the would-be First Gentleman of the United States when he urged the campaign to spend more time on a message for the white working class voters who had handed her surprising primary losses to Bernie Sanders in Michigan and Wisconsin.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/14/...-bill-clinton/
  #25  
Old 07-08-2018, 10:40 AM
Textual Innuendo Textual Innuendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 258
Well, I'll speak up for the lonely 2 (at this time) votes for the Electoral College:

First, a system that systematically gives your votes more weight the emptier the geography where you live is, is increasingly misguided. This was instituted in a time when most people lived in rural areas - in 1790, 94.9% of the population lived in "rural" areas. In 1990, it was 24.8%, and in 2010, it was 19.3%.

Demographics and living patterns have vastly changed, yet we are still slave to a system chained to the demographics and living patterns of 200+ years ago. And why is this? Simply because one party benefits from land + people having a much weightier vote than solely people. It is the OPPOSITE of proportional representation and "one man, one vote."

Second, the Electoral College was created for the SOLE PURPOSE of being able to deny the presidency to demagogues who are unfit for office. The Electoral College has repudiated it's sole purpose by letting a lying, swindling, under-investigation-for-treason conman into office.

These two factors are largely responsible for Trump getting into office, in the first sense as a systematic bias towards less populated states counting more, and in the second by the Electoral College failing to do the one thing they were created to do.
  #26  
Old 07-08-2018, 11:09 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textual Innuendo View Post
... First, a system that systematically gives your votes more weight the emptier the geography where you live is, is increasingly misguided. This was instituted in a time when most people lived in rural areas - in 1790, 94.9% of the population lived in "rural" areas. In 1990, it was 24.8%, and in 2010, it was 19.3%....
You've fundamentally misunderstood the system. Washington DC is not rural, but gets a shitload of per-capita electoral college power.
  #27  
Old 07-08-2018, 12:10 PM
drad dog drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 5,220
The runaway winner is just a tautology which does not answer the question: Everybody knows that procedurally speaking, he won because he got more votes than needed to win. I think the question must be why he got enough trump voters to win the EC.
  #28  
Old 07-08-2018, 01:18 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 11,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I blame Facebook. I believe there is a significant segment of voters that get most of their news from Facebook memes. These memes are generally full of lies that can be easily debunked, but for some reason they cannot be reached by logic. Many of these memes are overtly racist, and the rise of the Donald has lit the smoldering kindling of racism in the US, empowering them to come out from under the logs where vermin live and getting energized to vote.

Secondly, I blame Hillary. She is the only Democrat capable of losing to him. It isn't fair, but people just don't like her. She simply couldn't overcome over 30 years of smears.
I should have added "misogyny" as one of the poll options too.
  #29  
Old 07-08-2018, 01:20 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 11,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textual Innuendo View Post
Well, I'll speak up for the lonely 2 (at this time) votes for the Electoral College:

First, a system that systematically gives your votes more weight the emptier the geography where you live is, is increasingly misguided. This was instituted in a time when most people lived in rural areas - in 1790, 94.9% of the population lived in "rural" areas. In 1990, it was 24.8%, and in 2010, it was 19.3%.

Demographics and living patterns have vastly changed, yet we are still slave to a system chained to the demographics and living patterns of 200+ years ago. And why is this? Simply because one party benefits from land + people having a much weightier vote than solely people. It is the OPPOSITE of proportional representation and "one man, one vote."

Second, the Electoral College was created for the SOLE PURPOSE of being able to deny the presidency to demagogues who are unfit for office. The Electoral College has repudiated it's sole purpose by letting a lying, swindling, under-investigation-for-treason conman into office.

These two factors are largely responsible for Trump getting into office, in the first sense as a systematic bias towards less populated states counting more, and in the second by the Electoral College failing to do the one thing they were created to do.

Absent a Constitutional amendment, Democrats could fix this problem by having millions of liberals move away from California and New York into rural states like Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, Alaska, etc. Enough that those rural states would flip blue, but not so much that the Democratic margin of victory in CA and NY would be lost.
  #30  
Old 07-08-2018, 02:04 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 58,254
There's something I'd like to know with no good idea how to find out. I hear that local soybean farmers are in a dither. The export potential of soybeans has a lot to do with whether planting soybeans is farming or a hobby, But what I'm curious about is the "future's market" where people bet on the future price of a given crop.

There was about a week or so there when it was clear soybeans would be targeted as an economic weapon, then no, they won't, and now, yes they will. That would have caused fluctuations in the market for soybean futures, an opportunity for the knowledgeable investor to create profit.

Well, did anyone make exceptionally well timed investments?
  #31  
Old 07-08-2018, 02:10 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 83,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
There's something I'd like to know with no good idea how to find out. I hear that local soybean farmers are in a dither. The export potential of soybeans has a lot to do with whether planting soybeans is farming or a hobby, But what I'm curious about is the "future's market" where people bet on the future price of a given crop.

There was about a week or so there when it was clear soybeans would be targeted as an economic weapon, then no, they won't, and now, yes they will. That would have caused fluctuations in the market for soybean futures, an opportunity for the knowledgeable investor to create profit.

Well, did anyone make exceptionally well timed investments?
I'm sure no one in the Trump administration would have done so, as that would be unethical.
  #32  
Old 07-08-2018, 04:36 PM
Oredigger77 Oredigger77 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Back at 5,280
Posts: 4,494
I ended up going with the EC. It was a toss up between that and trump voters but in the end Clinton had enough votes just in the wrong location.
  #33  
Old 07-08-2018, 05:15 PM
pkbites pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tastes of Chocolate View Post
You missed "All of the above". There wasn't one person or group or even responsible. It was a whole pile of things.
This. It was a perfect storm of everything.

But one big omission on that list though are gun owners. Trump wisely sucked up to the NRA and GOA while the Democrats can't get it through their goddamned stupid heads that gun control at any level is a losing issue in national elections. Whenever I hear a pol say "I don't want to take away anyones guns. I just want to ban......yadda yadda yadda" they have lost a significant portion of the electorate.
__________________
I got tired of coming up with last-minute desperate solutions to impossible problems created by other fucking people!

William Stranix
  #34  
Old 07-08-2018, 06:11 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 58,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
...Democrats can't get it through their goddamned stupid heads that gun control at any level is a losing issue in national elections....
Well, it was. Yusta be, a Dem candidate had to have his picture taken with a gun, so that people wouldn't think he was some kind of effete pansy-ass liberal. Ivory tower pansy-ass liberal, which is the worst kind. Kerry was a decorated combat vet, pictures of him wind-surfing and duck hunting, which one did you see most often?

Times are changing. Obama can shoot a mean three-pointer, but, so far as I recall, that's about all he did to publicly scratch his balls and belch. Trump....well, less said, the better.

No "Gun control at any level" is a fanatic's position. Prepare to compromise or get crushed. And the soft guys with the wobbly bits? They aren't buying it.
  #35  
Old 07-08-2018, 06:18 PM
Dallas Jones Dallas Jones is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Orygun forest
Posts: 4,606
Hillary. It was always Hillary. Her judgement about many things was so faulty. Her Inevitableness is a very good summary of what went wrong.

And if she doesn't sit down and shut up, if she continues to try and have major influence in the DNC, be a king or queen maker, then she will be a negative factor in the next presidential campaign. The DNC should move on without her but hey won't because of the money machine that her various foundations provide. The Clintons can not let go of their influence and so the Democratic Party will take a hard left turn and loose, or Trump gets re-elected.
  #36  
Old 07-08-2018, 06:21 PM
JohnT JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 19,961
Yeah, in arguing "gun owners" were the deciding factor one would have to show pretty conclusive evidence that, for those voters, they would have voted against the party owned by the NRA had any other Dem candidate been nominated.

As the spread between party identification among gun owners has been growing since 1976, any trend against HRC would have to be shown exceeding the larger 40-year secular trend against Dems by gun owners.

https://www.thetrace.org/2017/07/gun...further-apart/
  #37  
Old 07-08-2018, 06:22 PM
Siam Sam Siam Sam is offline
Elephant Whisperer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 39,492
The stay-at-homes/3rd partiers. If they'd just done the right thing, we would not be in this mess today.
__________________
Everything happens for a reason. But sometimes the reason is you are stupid and make bad decisions.
  #38  
Old 07-08-2018, 06:28 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 58,254
Whole thing has made me question my disdain for the Satanic faith.
  #39  
Old 07-08-2018, 06:37 PM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You've fundamentally misunderstood the system. Washington DC is not rural, but gets a shitload of per-capita electoral college power.
Roughly equal to Wyoming.
  #40  
Old 07-08-2018, 07:03 PM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 20,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Roughly equal to Wyoming.
2010 census, DC 601,767 and Wyoming 563,767. A little under 10% more Washingtonians than Wyomingites.

I'm tired of hearing this crap about how the infallible founders wanted it this way. In the 2010 census, the largest state was just over 66 times as large as the smallest. In 1790, the total population of Virginia was 747,610 vs Delaware's 59,094. Thus the largest state was 12.6 times as big as the smallest. That infallible founders didn't foresee such a disparity in population, else they might have rethought the great compromise.
  #41  
Old 07-08-2018, 07:53 PM
don't mind me don't mind me is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 999
Comey. His sanctimonious bullshit was exquisitely timed to do the most damage with the smallest window of recovery.
  #42  
Old 07-08-2018, 08:09 PM
zamboniracer zamboniracer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Above the Uecker seats.
Posts: 4,856
The blame goes to the big money boys who planted and planted and planted the anti Clinton propaganda. 30 years worth of BS adds up.
  #43  
Old 07-08-2018, 08:10 PM
pkbites pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Well, it was. Prepare to compromise or get crushed.
That hasn't happened yet, has it? Has it? Telling me what is going to happen in the future is meaningless compared to what has and is already happening. As it stands gun control is, overall, a losing issue when it comes to national elections. And that has not changed yet, has it?


Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Yeah, in arguing "gun owners" were the deciding factor one would have to show pretty conclusive evidence that, for those voters, they would have voted against the party owned by the NRA had any other Dem candidate been nominated.
I didn't say it was the deciding factor. I said it was a perfect storm of several factors and gun owners were just one of them and should have been included on the list of many.

And some gun owners have turned on the Republican candidate. In 1992 some stayed home because George HW Bush signed an import ban on some firearms pissing quite a few people off. It wasn't the deciding factor on that election but it was one of many. So your argument is wrong.
__________________
I got tired of coming up with last-minute desperate solutions to impossible problems created by other fucking people!

William Stranix
  #44  
Old 07-08-2018, 09:14 PM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 19,559
With Gary Johnson, the media decided he was a crank and so they didn't report anything about him. Usually, that's how the media treats joke candidates.

In the case of Trump, they decided not to do so and ended up granting him the world's largest campaign donation via free exposure in, probably, the history of American elections. The consistently failed to cover his policy platform or run through why it was moronic, and instead just focused on how non-PC he was.

If the media had decided that Trump was the joke candidate and instead decided that Johnson (or whatever other 3rd party candidate) was the real opponent to Hillary Clinton, then they would have done their best to promote the hell out of him and done their worst to shoot down his policy platform because a good horse race sells newspapers.

Every election in the US ends up pretty darn close to 50/50, even when there's a large discrepancy in the quality of the candidates. And that's because people will back the clear loser, just because they like a dark horse candidate. And, when the race is all about popularity, not muscles or speed or anything, that equates to a case where a dark horse candidate will always just about come in even with the clear winner.

And that's stupid.

Fundamentally, Trump was elected because election via popularity contest is not a very good way of ensuring that you get elected leaders who are smart, capable, or trustworthy. You don't hire your electrical engineer by gathering a panel of judges and asking him to wear a thong and do a pole dance for them. That would just be stupid.

The popular election worked for 200 years to the extent that it has because party leaders selected the candidates, because the right to vote was restricted to the educated, and because TV charisma wasn't yet a factor of campaigning. You had to sell yourself, primarily, through the written word.

Now, I'm not saying that all of those are good things. I'm not saying that we should go back to restricting the vote to land-owning men. It makes sense that you would have everyone being represented able to have a say in the elections. But if you go and talk to a hundred janitors, one of them will be the sort of wise sage that dispenses Morgan Freeman style wisdom at every turn, and that's great, but eighty of them are going to be complete morons. If you go find a hundred land owning college graduates and talk to them, maybe five or ten will really impress you with their wisdom and five to ten of them will be morons. In the ideal world, your one sage janitor would be the one voting for all janitors and the 5-10 sage college educated land owners will be voting for all college educated land owners.

But if you enfranchise the entire population and handcuff the electoral college to them, and don't find a way to make sure that you're giving extra weight to the people who will do a good job of representing their class and making wise and reasoned choices that really do a professional job of investigation and consideration, then you're just going to move the quality of your candidates from Teddy Roosevelt to Donald Trump.

Blaming Trump voters isn't reasonable, because if Michael Moore ran as the Democratic candidate against Donald Trump in 2020, the vote would be 50/50 between the candidates. That's completely stupid, but it's true. The media would focus on the two of them, because they were the picks of the two major parties. People would sort out on either side to try and prevent the other guy from getting in and to keep the horse race even, and we'd be stuck with a complete moron as the president whichever side won.

And the problem is that we've not considered the choices we're making over the last 200 years. The states chose to expand the election of their electoral college picks from coming from an electoral district to being state wide, to give the state a greater relative strength in the Presidential vote than they'd otherwise have. They forced the electoral college to submit to the popular vote, because it served to strengthen the selective power of the dominant party in that state. More and more groups were enfranchised because it was "fair" or because it gave more power to one political party or the other.

None of this had to do with establishing a rigorous hiring interview that ensured that we were getting the best possible candidate with the actual qualifications and personality that is necessary for the job. It was all just selfish or, at best, Ivory Tower idealism.

Fundamentally, everyone will accept power if you grant it to them. If you tell people, "Hey you could vote for the candidate in the primaries if you write angry letter to the party heads and threaten to not donate money to their cause", then suddenly the party head has to allow your average rube to vote in the primaries. Maybe the party head adds superdelegates to try and protect against the power of stupid, but eventually someone will tell everyone, "Hey, you could have more power over the Presidency if you write angry letters to the party and threaten not to donate money, if they'll get rid of superdelegates."

And again, I'm not saying that party heads should select candidates. When they do, then that feeds right in to backroom shenanigans and Harvey Weinstein style creepy fucks gaining high position, because they've found a way to blackmail their way to the top. But there was never a point where someone said, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let's actually sit down and think about if there's a better mechanism that takes into account everyone's concerns and doesn't just put the decision into the hands of the lowest common denominator.

And the reason that no one does that is because the person saying "Hey, you should X" is usually someone who just wants to win more power and he's using the lure of fairness, anti-corruption, etc. to gain that power. He's not interested in the fate of the country, he's looking out for #1 and selling it to you as empowering the common man or being a voice for the embattled South, or whatever else.

I have seen a few videos and articles about how James Madison's government is designed to be robust and correct for mistakes, but just saying that something is resilient doesn't mean that it's perfect. Maybe it will come back, but so far as I have seen, all of the answers to Donald Trump have been things like, "Hey, we should get rid of superdelegates" and "Hey, we should get rid of the electoral college." Which is just saying, "Hey, that shit that let this criminal moron into the office on the other side? We should do more of that sort of thing on OUR SIDE." And sure, that gives you, the electorate, more power but that's how you end up electing Michael Moore for President.

Donald Trump is the president because most people are stupid, Ivory tower idealists have romantic images about stupid people and come up with excuses to empower them, and greedy bastards use those ideas to their advantage for personal gain.

We need to trust and enable Representative Government. You need to give up power to wiser heads, not just in the government but also during the election cycle. I'm not saying that the old ways are correct. I'm saying that we need a different way that actually makes sense and is based on science.

James Madison set the government up the way he did because he knew a shit ton about Ancient Greece and all of the experiments in different governmental and corporate setups through history. He did an analysis and made a proposal based on past experience.

Our past experience is that as populism has eroded the quality of the vote, we've gone from Richard Nixon to Donald Trump as our lowest hanging fruit and, however much you may hate Nixon, that's till a really far drop. Populism was not the solution. Direct democracy is not the solution. The Ancient Greeks tried it. Democracy, tyranny of the majority, and ochlocracy were feared by the founders of our nation, and that's because they could history and see how it turned out. We've all turned our back on history and instead decided to run happily towards those failed experiments.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 07-08-2018 at 09:15 PM.
  #45  
Old 07-08-2018, 10:04 PM
JohnT JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 19,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
That hasn't happened yet, has it? Has it? Telling me what is going to happen in the future is meaningless compared to what has and is already happening. As it stands gun control is, overall, a losing issue when it comes to national elections. And that has not changed yet, has it?




I didn't say it was the deciding factor. I said it was a perfect storm of several factors and gun owners were just one of them and should have been included on the list of many.

And some gun owners have turned on the Republican candidate. In 1992 some stayed home because George HW Bush signed an import ban on some firearms pissing quite a few people off. It wasn't the deciding factor on that election but it was one of many. So your argument is wrong.
Lol, a flat-out assertion w/o any corroborating evidence? Seriously?

Show us the data that gun owners switched from George Bush to Clinton. Because history doesn't support this. My data shows:

1. Ross Perot
2. Recession
3. Broken tax pledge
4. Foreign policy fatigue

As the driving factors in Bush's loss. The fact the NRA didn't support him may have been, at best, a distant 5th in his loss, but given the Perot factor this was hardly decisive, especially given Ross's famous gun control stance: "I don't think we ought to give machine guns to the crazies". So one can't argue that gun owners went to Perot and it is very difficult to believe, without corroborating data, your assertion that stay-at-home gun owners made a significant number of the 5.7 million votes that separated Clinton from Bush.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Ros...un_Control.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Geo...un_Control.htm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-95893e3c39c9/
  #46  
Old 07-08-2018, 11:48 PM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
2010 census, DC 601,767 and Wyoming 563,767. A little under 10% more Washingtonians than Wyomingites.

I'm tired of hearing this crap about how the infallible founders wanted it this way. In the 2010 census, the largest state was just over 66 times as large as the smallest. In 1790, the total population of Virginia was 747,610 vs Delaware's 59,094. Thus the largest state was 12.6 times as big as the smallest. That infallible founders didn't foresee such a disparity in population, else they might have rethought the great compromise.
The great compromise works just fine, until you cap the number of Representatives in 1929. Now that we don't have enough granularity to represent population equally in the House, it's all gone to hell.

Does anyone have the numbers on how much of Virginia's population counted as only 60% of a human?
  #47  
Old 07-08-2018, 11:53 PM
pkbites pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Lol, a flat-out assertion w/o any corroborating evidence? Seriously?

Show us the data that gun owners switched from George Bush to Clinton. Because history doesn't support this. My data shows:

1. Ross Perot
2. Recession
3. Broken tax pledge
4. Foreign policy fatigue

As the driving factors in Bush's loss. The fact the NRA didn't support him may have been, at best, a distant 5th in his loss
Jesus Christ! I didn't say they switched I said some of them stayed home, it's not the same. And I said it was one of many factors. First you post I have no evidence of it, then you say it may have have been factor #5 which corroborates my claim that it was one of several factors. Thanks for helping me make my case.

This insistence you have that gun owners aren't one of several forces to be reckoned with is ludicris.

Last edited by pkbites; 07-08-2018 at 11:54 PM.
  #48  
Old 07-09-2018, 12:08 AM
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 16,421
* Hillary was an unusually weak candidate.
* Without a powerful right-wing media America would be in much better shape, but if FoxNews didn't exist I think something would arise to take its place.
* Backlash against PC has become a problem. If "anti-gunnism" falls under the broad umbrella of "PC" then it was certainly decisive.
* Various GOP Vote suppression measures played a role. They certainly swung Pennsylvania; if also Florida then that was decisive.
* Comey's announcement was badly timed.
* Stay-at-home voters are a major hindrance to democracy and rational outcomes. I'd suggest mandatory voting, but the conflict of that with GOP suppression measures would lead to huge strife.
* The electoral college handicaps D's significantly. Not so much because of the power of rural voters in Montana, etc.—these are partly offset by the more informed voters of small "states" like Delaware and D.C.—but because of a gerrymandering-like effect, though due to happenstance: Of the four biggest states, 2 (CA, NY) landslide for D, while two (TX, FL) are close but R. This

So: If we were asked to rank the top five "reasons for Trump's victory" this might have been an interesting exercise (in epistemology?). But the poll only allowed one box to be clicked, so I went with the obvious if uninteresting answer: "Trump voters."
  #49  
Old 07-09-2018, 01:20 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Roughly equal to Wyoming.
Which proves my point that it's nothing to do with rural vs urban but everything to do with states (or the District) with small populations vs those with large ones. Rhode Island does pretty well for itself in the Electoral College too. It's population isn't very "rural" either.
  #50  
Old 07-09-2018, 01:22 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
2010 census, DC 601,767 and Wyoming 563,767. A little under 10% more Washingtonians than Wyomingites.

I'm tired of hearing this crap about how the infallible founders wanted it this way. In the 2010 census, the largest state was just over 66 times as large as the smallest. In 1790, the total population of Virginia was 747,610 vs Delaware's 59,094. Thus the largest state was 12.6 times as big as the smallest. That infallible founders didn't foresee such a disparity in population, else they might have rethought the great compromise.
They left us a way to change it. Get to amending, or at least trying to, and find out if your fellow citizens agree with you that this is an important issue that needs to be changed.
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 10:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017