Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

201 to 250 of 4,260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Replying to a couple points people brought up in the course of this thread:

Sanders was a thirty year DC politician, a Democrat-in-Name only (he's already listed as Independant again), and well known for popping off well provoked. Does anyone REALLY think the same people that turned emails into a pearl-clutching scandal couldn't have done the same to him? (Although I acknowledge that "deplorables" was not a wise move, the debate over "what does 'racist' mean" should have made that obvious)

Granted, I voted Clinton completely delighted to have a centrist candidate, so my bias IS affecting my thinking, but my reaction to "30,000 deleted emails!" was the reflection that I delete more than that in 6 months at my job, If she only deleted 30000 critical emails in 4 years, her assistants must have been a lot better at filtering her stuff than mine.
*
I'm hoping that Dems turn completely obstructionist over the next couple of years, although stopping short of shutting down the government like the GoP did. With a majority in both houses, it won't be much more than posturing, but all they can do is all they can do, and doing that seems to be very reassuring to their vocal constituents. Which will be important during local elections these next couple of years. If they can galvanize thier politically active base, perhaps they can turn that into votes.
*
I'm curious if world leaders will start trying to work around Trump. The call's to Mexico and Australia did not seem to go so hot, although the threat to Mexico's sovereignty has actually been something our military has been planning as a sort of last resort for at least...6 years I want to say. Perhaps longer, but that's when I became aware of it. It doesn't seem to a secret among even low-ranking military personnel. Not planning as in "We're going to do the thing" but "If we have to do the thing, let's at least not shoot our own foot off." Which makes Kelley's command of Homeland Security, and thus the guy that would have DONE the planning in charge of Trump's currently most loyal police force...slightly worrying to say the least. And somewhat reassuring at the same time, strangely.

I digress. I wonder if world leaders will start trying to contact house and senate republicans directly. Tell Pence, et al, "Put a leash on your president before we HAVE to respond to this crap." In that climate, and given that the SCOTUS nominee has been duly presented, I can't imagine republicans would want Trump at the helm any longer than they have to have him, although I didnt consider D****ss in chief directly funding Teaparty candidates if he gets impeached. That's an excellent point, actually.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know what the future of the democratic part is but I'm pretty sure it's not with corporate democrats. Seems like a corporate democrat is a republican that is pro-choice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Republicans had spent decades exploiting Clinton's image with propaganda to portray her as corrupt, and years pumping up the email scandal. And she was a woman. In my opinion, the GOP hated her even more than they hated Obama. They just didn't have the "ground game" on Sanders, you could say.

That and it's really hard to sell the "We're the reasonable alternative to this crazy-haired extremist" when you're selling Trump.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
That and it's really hard to sell the "We're the reasonable alternative to this crazy-haired extremist" when you're selling Trump.

A fair point. If instead of hitting Trump's voters, her campaign had kept on message that Trump himself was a Whackadoodle, they might have turned the moderate republican numbers they'd been counting on. But, alas.


That was the bulk of her campaign, really. The trouble is, "I'm not as bad as the other guy" has never been a recipe for victory. Clinton needed to put the focus less on lofty ideals that appealed to Democrats and more on real goals (less "Stronger Together", more "Make America Great Again"), but she ran into a lot of challenges along the way.

Sovereign Court

They were never going to vote for her. The best she could have hoped for was republican voters being so discussed with Trump or Johnson that they just stayed home. The only person more unpopular then Clinton that election was Trump and so it was a battle to see who could motivate their base more. Trump ran a populist campaign while Clinton ran a "I'm not Trump" campaign, and as I said repeatedly, there were two other candidates on that ticket.


If the hope for the Democratic Party is to turn into the Republican Party, then what's the point?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
That was the bulk of her campaign, really. The trouble is, "I'm not as bad as the other guy" has never been a recipe for victory.

I get what you mean, but if there was EVER a candidate it should have worked against, Trump was that candidate. Its also difficult to outsell someone that was blatantly, brazenly lying.

I should also be said that Dems have an uphill struggle with rural America. A lot of pundits have claimed that they're the ones dems have to reach, but I'm not sure thats even possible. The only coherent message Democrats can agree on is that "Change is possible" and that does NOT sell well to rural voters. I say this as someone that grew up in a rural area myself; when every year brings lowered crop prices, rising fuel costs, and more people chasing an ever dwindling supply of jobs, "change" is a swear word and "big change" is anathema. And their lives, growing up and dying in the same area their parents did (not necessarily what will happen, but this is the dream rural America has for itself), does not equip them to handle big changes. What they really, truly, want is to live the same life they've had for the last ten, twenty, hundred years. That's what conservative means, "One possibility allowed, the one I chooses." Liberal 'All things are possible" does not square with that, so Dems can't simultaneously promise them that and promise better lives to everyone else.

Sadly, the GOP in general and Trump specifically is completely willing to lie to them about that. Tell them that the things you learned as a child are what your children will be taught, That the jobs your parents retired out of are going to be waiting for your grandchildren. In pathfinder terms, these are the lvl 1 commoners that have no interest in becoming lvl 2. Most won't anyways, but these are the ones that actively resist it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

SO POSSIBLE SOLUTION AM SENDING ABUNDANCE OF HOUSECATS TO RURAL AREAS, LET PHARASMA SORT OUT LVL 1 COMMONERS?

WAIT, PATHFINDER FIX THAT. IN 3.P RURAL VOTER SUPPRESSION EFFORTS AM UNLIKELY TO SUCCEED.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

~grumbles~ The more I research them the more I am starting to despise the Republican Party. This is one of the reasons.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
That was the bulk of her campaign, really. The trouble is, "I'm not as bad as the other guy" has never been a recipe for victory.
I get what you mean, but if there was EVER a candidate it should have worked against, Trump was that candidate.

No disagreement here.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
I'm gonna disagree with a lot of folks here: Hillary won the vote, and she won it big despite the odds.
Winning the vote doesn't matter diddly squat if you can't win the Electoral College.

Yes, that's part of my larger point. One of the things we have to do is gerrymander the electoral map in our favor in 2020.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Obstructionism generally favors the Republicans, because they're the ones who run on "the federal government is incompetent".

Good point, we need to ensure that everyone knows that the Republicans are incompetent. They don't want the government to work, so that they can sit on their hands, collect their freeloader government paychecks, and then blame the government for their own laziness.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Republicans do still have to fear a General surge, actually. They can't afford to only pander to their party any more than a president can.

They can. Or rather, its so much easier to dislodge them from the primaries than the general election that if you can only pander to the base or the general you pander to the base.

Its all about that base...

A general surge needs to work against gerrymandered districts and voter apathy in an off year election. A surge from the base just needs to work up anger to get 51% of people you've spent decades working up to a frenzy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Republicans do still have to fear a General surge, actually. They can't afford to only pander to their party any more than a president can.

They can. Or rather, its so much easier to dislodge them from the primaries than the general election that if you can only pander to the base or the general you pander to the base.

Its all about that base...

A general surge needs to work against gerrymandered districts and voter apathy in an off year election. A surge from the base just needs to work up anger to get 51% of people you've spent decades working up to a frenzy.

Not necessarily. Gerrymandering doesn't usually work to give representatives especially secure seats, it concentrates the opposition's votes into fewer districts with large majorities and spreads yours out over more districts with smaller majorities. This gets you more seats than the raw numbers would suggest, but it also leaves you more vulnerable in a wave election - if you're winning your districts by 4-5 points, a 5 point shift puts everything in reach.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
I'm gonna disagree with a lot of folks here: Hillary won the vote, and she won it big despite the odds.
Winning the vote doesn't matter diddly squat if you can't win the Electoral College.
Yes, that's part of my larger point. One of the things we have to do is gerrymander the electoral map in our favor in 2020.

Gerrymandering literally has no effect on the electoral college.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also it should be remembered that some states that Trump won the electoral votes by were by pretty thin margins. Those states in general are not locked down as republican for either congress or for the next election. Trump winning them has more to do with poor strategy of the dems and an unexciting candidate than it does about anything concerning Trump's support.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
I'm gonna disagree with a lot of folks here: Hillary won the vote, and she won it big despite the odds.
Winning the vote doesn't matter diddly squat if you can't win the Electoral College.
Yes, that's part of my larger point. One of the things we have to do is gerrymander the electoral map in our favor in 2020.
Gerrymandering literally has no effect on the electoral college.

No, but it can result in a situation where, say, Congress refuses even interview the Supreme Court nominee of an opposition party President, so their complete nut job of a presidential candidate can mobilize the party faithful voter base in swing states by mentioning the "open" Supreme Court seat as election issue.

Y'know, for example.


Hitdice wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
I'm gonna disagree with a lot of folks here: Hillary won the vote, and she won it big despite the odds.
Winning the vote doesn't matter diddly squat if you can't win the Electoral College.
Yes, that's part of my larger point. One of the things we have to do is gerrymander the electoral map in our favor in 2020.
Gerrymandering literally has no effect on the electoral college.

No, but it can result in a situation where, say, Congress refuses even interview the Supreme Court nominee of an opposition party President, so their complete nut job of a presidential candidate can mobilize the party faithful voter base in swing states by mentioning the "open" Supreme Court seat as election issue.

Y'know, for example.

I'm not saying that gerrymandering isn't an important issue to address, I'm just saying that it isn't the SAME issue as the electoral college.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
I'm gonna disagree with a lot of folks here: Hillary won the vote, and she won it big despite the odds.
Winning the vote doesn't matter diddly squat if you can't win the Electoral College.
Yes, that's part of my larger point. One of the things we have to do is gerrymander the electoral map in our favor in 2020.
Gerrymandering literally has no effect on the electoral college.

No, but it can result in a situation where, say, Congress refuses even interview the Supreme Court nominee of an opposition party President, so their complete nut job of a presidential candidate can mobilize the party faithful voter base in swing states by mentioning the "open" Supreme Court seat as election issue.

Y'know, for example.

I'm not saying that gerrymandering isn't an important issue to address, I'm just saying that it isn't the SAME issue as the electoral college.

I have to disagree. One leads to the other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
I'm gonna disagree with a lot of folks here: Hillary won the vote, and she won it big despite the odds.
Winning the vote doesn't matter diddly squat if you can't win the Electoral College.
Yes, that's part of my larger point. One of the things we have to do is gerrymander the electoral map in our favor in 2020.
Gerrymandering literally has no effect on the electoral college.

No, but it can result in a situation where, say, Congress refuses even interview the Supreme Court nominee of an opposition party President, so their complete nut job of a presidential candidate can mobilize the party faithful voter base in swing states by mentioning the "open" Supreme Court seat as election issue.

Y'know, for example.

I'm not saying that gerrymandering isn't an important issue to address, I'm just saying that it isn't the SAME issue as the electoral college.

I don't disagree, but I think the stonewalling of Merrick Garland shows how gerrymandering can literally have an effect on the electoral college. Like, literally literally, not figuratively literally.

I don't think redrawing state lines in order to gerrymander the electoral college is remotely possible, but I do think congressional Dems should introduce an amendment to have the President selected by popular vote rather than the electoral college when the two have different results, and embarrass the hell out of the Republicans when they don't support it. (Ideally said amendment would pass, but my optimism dial is currently set to negative infinity.)

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Hitdice wrote:
I don't think redrawing state line in order to gerrymander the electoral college is remotely possible, but I do think congressional Dems should introduce an amendment to have the President selected by popular vote rather than the electoral college when the two have different results, and embarrass the hell out of the Republicans when they don't support it. (Ideally said amendment would pass, but my optimism dial is currently set to negative infinity.)

They don't need an amendment for that.

There has been an effort in the works for years to get states to agree to assign their electoral votes based on the winner of the national (rather than state) popular vote. Several states have signed on, but the agreement only goes in to effect once they've gotten states representing a majority of the electoral votes to join.

The problem is that Republicans control most state governments... and not a single GOP controlled state has joined the agreement.

Ergo yes... there IS a link between gerrymandering and control of the electoral college. Without gerrymandering the GOP would not control as many state governments as they do, and if those state governments shifted there might be enough Democrat controlled states to change how electoral college votes are apportioned.

Of course... Republicans are now trying to shift it the other way. In Virginia and other states they control they are looking to change the rules to apportion electoral college votes based on the number of counties won rather than the popular vote... which would create an even MORE direct link between gerrymandering and the electoral college. Essentially, this would reduce the number of electoral college votes Democrats get in states that vote Democrat in national elections, but Republican in state elections.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

We have a tunnel under the street by our place that has some awesome echoes.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
I don't think redrawing state line in order to gerrymander the electoral college is remotely possible, but I do think congressional Dems should introduce an amendment to have the President selected by popular vote rather than the electoral college when the two have different results, and embarrass the hell out of the Republicans when they don't support it. (Ideally said amendment would pass, but my optimism dial is currently set to negative infinity.)

They don't need an amendment for that.

There has been an effort in the works for years to get states to agree to assign their electoral votes based on the winner of the national (rather than state) popular vote. Several states have signed on, but the agreement only goes in to effect once they've gotten states representing a majority of the electoral votes to join.

The problem is that Republicans control most state governments... and not a single GOP controlled state has joined the agreement.

Ergo yes... there IS a link between gerrymandering and control of the electoral college. Without gerrymandering the GOP would not control as many state governments as they do, and if those state governments shifted there might be enough Democrat controlled states to change how electoral college votes are apportioned.

Of course... Republicans are now trying to shift it the other way. In Virginia and other states they control they are looking to change the rules to apportion electoral college votes based on the number of counties won rather than the popular vote... which would create an even MORE direct link between gerrymandering and the electoral college. Essentially, this would reduce the number of electoral college votes Democrats get in states that vote Democrat in national elections, but Republican in state elections.

Yeah, that's scary s#@# right there. Changes the balance of power completely. I don't think it's too likely to happen, for a number of reasons, but it's another game-changing possibility.

And technically, I think it's even more directly tied to gerrymandering, since the proposals I've see are to tie electoral votes directly to congressional districts - 2 for Senators, statewide, and the rest based on the outcome of district. There may be other variations though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
I don't think redrawing state line in order to gerrymander the electoral college is remotely possible, but I do think congressional Dems should introduce an amendment to have the President selected by popular vote rather than the electoral college when the two have different results, and embarrass the hell out of the Republicans when they don't support it. (Ideally said amendment would pass, but my optimism dial is currently set to negative infinity.)

They don't need an amendment for that.

There has been an effort in the works for years to get states to agree to assign their electoral votes based on the winner of the national (rather than state) popular vote. Several states have signed on, but the agreement only goes in to effect once they've gotten states representing a majority of the electoral votes to join.

The problem is that Republicans control most state governments... and not a single GOP controlled state has joined the agreement.

Ergo yes... there IS a link between gerrymandering and control of the electoral college. Without gerrymandering the GOP would not control as many state governments as they do, and if those state governments shifted there might be enough Democrat controlled states to change how electoral college votes are apportioned.

Of course... Republicans are now trying to shift it the other way. In Virginia and other states they control they are looking to change the rules to apportion electoral college votes based on the number of counties won rather than the popular vote... which would create an even MORE direct link between gerrymandering and the electoral college. Essentially, this would reduce the number of electoral college votes Democrats get in states that vote Democrat in national elections, but Republican in state elections.

My point is, introducing an amendment would bring the debate to the national stage. We need to start thinking bigger than just being inclusive and diverse and hoping everyone will flock to us because we're pure of heart.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fun video:

Student To Pelosi: Young People Do Not Believe In Capitalism, Can We Fight Against "Right-Wing Economics?"

Pelosi: "Well, I thank you for your question. But I have to say, we're capitalist."

Down with the Democrats!

(This commie politrolling post in the interests of having posts to point to that are clearly not echo chamber-y. I'm always looking out for you guys.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

That's exactly the same excuse you used for the stains on the carpets in Manse Dice, Doodles. And who had to clean it up?!

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Fun video:

Student To Pelosi: Young People Do Not Believe In Capitalism, Can We Fight Against "Right-Wing Economics?"

Pelosi: "Well, I thank you for your question. But I have to say, we're capitalist."

Down with the Democrats!

(This commie politrolling post in the interests of having posts to point to that are clearly not echo chamber-y. I'm always looking out for you guys.)

I think the real issue here is differing definitions of 'capitalism'.

In recent years it has come to be defined as a sort of 'inverse socialism' / 'survival of the fittest' system where any restrictions on the ability to make money (e.g. regulations against working your employees to death) are to be stamped out.

This 'GOP capitalism' is likely what the student was referring to. Pelosi was likely talking about the older definition where capitalism protects and enriches both the employers and the workers.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Pelosi was likely talking about the older definition where capitalism protects and enriches both the employers and the workers.

That version of capitalism never existed. It only took place where it was forced upon the moneyed class through working class struggles.

OSHA Regulations, 40 hour work weeks, child labor laws, etc. were not something that Politicians decided to give to people because they were looking to protect and enrich workers, they were given to the people so they would not rise up en masse and overthrow the elites.

A People's History of the United States.

And this book is really just a survey of working class struggles a lot more can be found by delving into Zinn's primary sources which I am sad to say I have not had much time to do.

This is a bit off topic sorry bout that.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Fun video:

Student To Pelosi: Young People Do Not Believe In Capitalism, Can We Fight Against "Right-Wing Economics?"

Pelosi: "Well, I thank you for your question. But I have to say, we're capitalist."

Down with the Democrats!

(This commie politrolling post in the interests of having posts to point to that are clearly not echo chamber-y. I'm always looking out for you guys.)

I think the real issue here is differing definitions of 'capitalism'.

In recent years it has come to be defined as a sort of 'inverse socialism' / 'survival of the fittest' system where any restrictions on the ability to make money (e.g. regulations against working your employees to death) are to be stamped out.

This 'GOP capitalism' is likely what the student was referring to. Pelosi was likely talking about the older definition where capitalism protects and enriches both the employers and the workers.

Though I'd say the "newer" definition is actually the older one. Your older version was essentially an attempt to tame capitalism and make it less damaging to workers. Largely done around the mid-century in the face of huge worker unrest and the threat of communist movements. Fought tooth and nail by the capitalists of the day and more subtly ever since.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I also like how Pelosi says this change happened 20, 15 years ago, which, of course, dates it to the end of the Clinton years/beginning of the Bush years and, presumably, a rampaging GOP on steroids affair, when, actually, the neoliberal offensive has been going on since the mid-70s and has been a thoroughly bipartisan affair.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Also it should be remembered that some states that Trump won the electoral votes by were by pretty thin margins. Those states in general are not locked down as republican for either congress or for the next election. Trump winning them has more to do with poor strategy of the dems and an unexciting candidate than it does about anything concerning Trump's support.

Hillary did not just run a poor race she supports bad policies. Bernie pushed her way farther to the left then she wanted to be. If she was elected she would have snapped back to the right like a rubber band. She has been in bed with the Walton's of Walmart for forever, she voted for the Iraq war, she was the impetus behind overthrowing Gaddafi, she saber rattled at Putin, hell the neocon Kagans (among others) came out in support of her, she was in bed with the Saudis as Secretary of State the largest supporters of international terrorism in the Middle East, etc. etc. The Saudis who also are not exactly the world leader in women's rights either.

What about those positions and policies would inspire progressives to come out and vote for her?

Obama won in 2008 partially because he had no past to be judged on and when he made speeches about being progressive there was no history to be pointed to that revealed him as the hypocrite he eventually became. Of course much of the "good" policies he attempted to support and encourage were blocked by the Republicans but that is because the Democrats did not win enough of a majority in Congress during that first mid-term election in 2010 to assist him in doing so. I have to wonder how far progressive he would have gone anyway when 90% of his cabinet was hand picked by Citibank.

With Hillary she had all that baggage plus deleted emails and the Clinton Foundation issues.

The Democrats need another inspirational candidate like Obama but one who will actually pursue progressive agendas if they want to "rebuild" the party.

That starts as has been said in this thread many times already at the local and state level and federally by winning House and Senate seats.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hitdice wrote:

I don't think redrawing state lines in order to gerrymander the electoral college is remotely possible, but I do think congressional Dems should introduce an amendment to have the President selected by popular vote rather than the electoral college when the two have different results, and embarrass the hell out of the Republicans when they don't support it. (Ideally said amendment would pass, but my optimism dial is currently set to negative infinity.)

One was, actually. I don't think it even made it to the floor.

The problem is, especially after this election, republican *voters* are quite happy with the electoral college. They are supremely comfortable with having their votes count more than someone in California or New York. They don't want a fair, every one person has one vote system. Not as long as the current system favors them, and they'll see any move by GOP to block a new system as looking after their constituents. It would even be true!

Remember, only us liberals are willing to allow other people to be idiots in their own way on their own time, as along as we're all equal in our chosen idiocy. Conservatives want us all to be the same kind of stupid, and will do what they can to force THIER stupid on us whether we like it or not.

AM BARBARIAN wrote:

SO POSSIBLE SOLUTION AM SENDING ABUNDANCE OF HOUSECATS TO RURAL AREAS, LET PHARASMA SORT OUT LVL 1 COMMONERS?

WAIT, PATHFINDER FIX THAT. IN 3.P RURAL VOTER SUPPRESSION EFFORTS AM UNLIKELY TO SUCCEED.

No, no, you might be onto something. If we pitch it as a healthcare reform, rural voters might be too distracted petting kittens to vote.


AnimatedPaper wrote:


AM BARBARIAN wrote:

SO POSSIBLE SOLUTION AM SENDING ABUNDANCE OF HOUSECATS TO RURAL AREAS, LET PHARASMA SORT OUT LVL 1 COMMONERS?

WAIT, PATHFINDER FIX THAT. IN 3.P RURAL VOTER SUPPRESSION EFFORTS AM UNLIKELY TO SUCCEED.

No, no, you might be onto something. If we pitch it as a healthcare reform, rural voters might be too distracted petting kittens to vote.

I have been using the Make America Kittens Again plugin for Chrome. Makes reading all the horrible news stories a little more tolerable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the way forward is to focus more on what was wrong with Clinton.

BTW, only 62,170 fewer people voted for her than Obama.

Obama 65,915,795
Clinton 65,853,625

A difference of 0.0943%.


Irontruth wrote:
I think the way forward is to focus more on what was wrong with Clinton.

So Nintendo's strategy with the Switch in regards to the Wii U?


I have no frame of reference for this analogy.


CBDunkerson wrote:

There has been an effort in the works for years to get states to agree to assign their electoral votes based on the winner of the national (rather than state) popular vote. Several states have signed on, but the agreement only goes in to effect once they've gotten states representing a majority of the electoral votes to join.

The problem is that Republicans control most state governments... and not a single GOP controlled state has joined the agreement.

Quite frankly, why should they? It's an agreement that plainly gives an advantage to Democrats who do well in high turnout elections without giving them anything in return.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I think the way forward is to focus more on what was wrong with Clinton.
So Nintendo's strategy with the Switch in regards to the Wii U?

No, because a great performance for a new console would be annual global sales in the 15-20 million range.

To win the presidency you need to attract at least 60+ million votes in the US alone. Also, you need to do so to the exclusion of the other guy; which isn't a requirement for a gaming console.

So basically, no, because thats a completely inappropriate analogy.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Again, we don't care about Trump's base. Trump's base is a screaming minority—albeit a powerful one within the GOP—that will never admit wrongdoing. A deplorable minority, you might say. A veritable basket.

THis line of thinking is literally what lost Hillary the election.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Take a look at some of the posts Kurt Eichenwald has been making. So not every repub has lost their mind?


Irontruth wrote:
I have no frame of reference for this analogy.

A large part of the sales pitch for the Switch has been Nintendo pointing out all of the parts of the Switch which fix the parts of the Wii U that were terrible, rather than just pointing out the Switch's standalone merits.


BARBARIAN NOT ENTIRELY SURE ABOUT HOW GERRYMANDER AM WORKING, EXCEPT THAT IT AM SOUNDING LIKE INCREDIBLY SMASHABLE CR 5 CREATURE OR SOMETHING, BUT BARBARIAN AM LIKE, 80% SURE GERRYMANDER AM SOMETHING THAT AM ENSURING DISTRICTS AT HOUSE LEVEL.

BARBARIAN NOT SEEING HOW THAT AM AFFECTING WHAT SENATE DO. SENATE VOTES AM STATEWIDE; THIS AM MEANING GERRYMANDER AM UNRELATED TO SENATE BLOCKADE OF JUDGEY JUDGERTON. HOUSE NOT EVEN INVOLVED IN JUDICIARY PROCESS.

P.S. BARBARIAN DEPLOYING SEMICOLON CORRECTLY FOR FIRST TIME IN LONG TIME. BET NOT SEE THAT COMING.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
The problem is that Republicans control most state governments... and not a single GOP controlled state has joined the agreement.
Quite frankly, why should they? It's an agreement that plainly gives an advantage to Democrats who do well in high turnout elections without giving them anything in return.

Well, because they believe in democracy and should want the candidate supported by a majority of the populace to win.

Ok... stop laughing. :]

Irontruth wrote:

I think the way forward is to focus more on what was wrong with Clinton.

BTW, only 62,170 fewer people voted for her than Obama.

Obama 65,915,795
Clinton 65,853,625

A difference of 0.0943%.

If Clinton got effectively the same number of votes as Obama did (in 2012, he had more in 2008) then doesn't that imply the problem wasn't with her? She did as well as the last Dem who WON.

Rather, the problem was that Trump did better than his predecessors;

2000 50,456,002 R / 50,999,897 D - Bush*
2004 62,040,610 R / 59,028,444 D - Bush
2008 59,948,323 R / 69,498,516 D - Obama
2012 60,933,504 R / 65,915,795 D - Obama
2016 62,985,105 R / 65,853,625 D - Trump*

Thus, the numbers suggest that Trump was more popular with the voters than Romney by a margin of more than 2 million. Clinton's total was a mere 62 thousand short of Obama's... she essentially matched his turnout.

This seems counter-intuitive because polls have consistently shown that Trump is the least popular newly elected president (Dem OR GOP) ever. Apparently, while not a lot of people like Trump... those who DO were disproportionally likely to vote.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Again, we don't care about Trump's base. Trump's base is a screaming minority—albeit a powerful one within the GOP—that will never admit wrongdoing. A deplorable minority, you might say. A veritable basket.
THis line of thinking is literally what lost Hillary the election.

Depends on how you define his "base". I don't think the "Trump Base" is the exact same thing as people who voted Trump or lean Republican. Remember Trump is kind of out there for even most mainstream GOP folks.

A core of voters will never vote for a democrat, just like a core of voters will never vote for a Republican. While I don't think we should sling insults at the Trump or Republican core, we shouldn't worry about winning them over. We need to target all of the voters who either sat out last election, or mostly voted Trump out of economic self interest.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Again, we don't care about Trump's base. Trump's base is a screaming minority—albeit a powerful one within the GOP—that will never admit wrongdoing. A deplorable minority, you might say. A veritable basket.
THis line of thinking is literally what lost Hillary the election.

I see where you're coming from, but I have to disagree- there just aren't that many loud, screaming fanatics. They are a minority within the group. I would say the larger reasons for why people held their nose and voted for Trump have to be acknowledged.

Or, you know, what Jawa said.


It's the outright disregard of a segment of the population.
Get as many votes as you can, and don't alienate the people you might need votes from.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
I have been using the Make America Kittens Again plugin for Chrome. Makes reading all the horrible news stories a little more tolerable.

Is there one out there for Firefox? Because seriously, I could use some fluff in my political life that isn't astroturf orange.

Back on track, though: What are the Democrats selling? What can a consumer voter get behind and go 'YEAH, WE NEED THIS THING! MAKE IT SO, NUMBER ONE!'

201 to 250 of 4,260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards