Which side takes defeat harder?

[Buck_Godot]

@elucidator

Guys? This is “nut picking”. This person is seriously up-fucked, no question, but setting her forth as representative is bullshit unless we have something beyond this woeful quote.

Stupid is contagious, you argue with idiots, you get more dumbest.

Agreed. Also while it makes a nice zinger to end the article with, it is presented totally without context. It is likely the woman meant to say “Trump is hurting the people he shouldn’t”, but got flustered and mixed up her words.

[ElvisL1ves]

She didn’t seem to be saying he should be hurting anyone just for the sake of hurting them (even though others of his supporters do say that), but was simply complaining that he was filling the swamp (and wallowing in it) instead of draining it, which in fact he is. There’s an old saying that governance is “comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable”, yes but that only means the wealthy need to be taxed more heavily than the poor for the sake of society.

[Chronos]

@Velocity

Ah…? :dubious:

Yes. For instance, in 2009, the Senate had a choice between passing the version of the ACA with the Stupak Amendment (and incidentally, guess what party Stupak was?), or letting the version without it pass. The Republicans in the Senate, every last one of them, 100%, chose the version without. You can’t call any politician pro-life if they vote against the biggest pro-life legislation since Roe.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Chronos

Yes. For instance, in 2009, the Senate had a choice between passing the version of the ACA with the Stupak Amendment (and incidentally, guess what party Stupak was?), or letting the version without it pass. The Republicans in the Senate, every last one of them, 100%, chose the version without. You can’t call any politician pro-life if they vote against the biggest pro-life legislation since Roe.

I don’t think “pro-life” is the label most of those politicians who did vote for “the version of the ACA with the Stupak Amendment” would choose for themselves.

[Maestroh]

@Velocity

This question may be kind of like asking whether Chernobyl was worse than Fukushima - they’re both meltdowns - but meltdowns still come in degrees.

ISTM that both sides have reacted with greater and greater intensity to defeat - at least, far more than in the 1980s or 1990s - but that Democrats/liberals are still likely to take defeat somewhat harder and more bitterly than Republicans. (Disclaimer: Based off of little but my own subjective, biased, perception) The liberal meltdown in 2016 far surpassed the conservative meltdowns in 2008 and 2012.
There are, IMHO, four reasons for this:

1. Losing to Obama is one thing, losing to Trump is another. The latter’s victory is more irksome, based off of persona and other characteristics, than the former. Hence Democrats took losing to Trump even worse than Republicans took losing to Obama.

2. Many Democrats/liberals have more to lose from a Republican victory than vice versa. For instance, nobody would ever worry that their heterosexual marriage to be banned, Democratic victories or not, but there is a chance that a Republican victory could lead to gay marriage being overturned (if it leads to enough of a conservative SCOTUS majority, etc. etc.) Likewise, no pregnant woman ever worries in America about having an abortion forced on her against her will, but there are indeed women who worry they can’t get an abortion if they want one.

3. Conservatives are likelier to skew older, liberals likelier to skew younger in age. Older folks are not likely to go out in the streets protesting an election outcome they don’t like. They are more rooted and set and less prone to action. Also, they often use social media less.

4. Trump’s election was a surprise; Obama’s election and reelection wasn’t. However, that being said…it still seems to me that even if the polls predict Republican victory all along, that Democrats still react worse to it than vice versa, for reasons 1-3# mentioned above.

The Democrats pretty much always take it harder. In fact, they refuse to admit they got beat if they can get away with it. And even then, they always manage to blame something other than their candidate for why they lost.

To hear them tell it, they lost the races in 68, 80, and 88 due to racist politics and 2000 and 2004 were stolen by the Bushes and then 2016 Russia somehow got in and changed votes (which is not the charge).

The Republican whining tends to be limited to things like blaming Ross Perot for splitting the vote (a defensible view but 99% likely to be incorrect).