Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Supertony51 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:
Somehow we got into the conversation about "Rape culture" (she is VERY VERY left wing) and how awful it is. I told her that I've had the privilege to travel the world and lived in countries where there is a real rape culture.

The next time you order a drink and get the wrong one, I hope you are content with your server reminding you how lucky you are that you have anything at all to drink, when so many people in the world have limited access to clean water.

that Anology isn't even remotely related.

Of course it is. You're essentially making an insipid argument that nothing is really bad, as long as it's worse somewhere else.

 Supertony51 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:
Somehow we got into the conversation about "Rape culture" (she is VERY VERY left wing) and how awful it is. I told her that I've had the privilege to travel the world and lived in countries where there is a real rape culture.

The next time you order a drink and get the wrong one, I hope you are content with your server reminding you how lucky you are that you have anything at all to drink, when so many people in the world have limited access to clean water.

that Anology isn't even remotely related.

In the U.S. Rapists are vilified, persecuted, and are imprisoned for long periods of time. Rape isn't a accepted part of our culture

In the M.E. Rape is considered a blemish on the honor of the family and the victims are often murdered or disfigured. Rape maybe isn't advocated, but it certainly isn't shunned

Huge difference between that and some dirty water.

To be honest while we do jail them, we barely persecute the cases and most of the time the questions start with "what did the woman do wrong" or if they are found guilty there usually isnt a lot of jail time

 sebster wrote:

The foundation isn't going to get the same kind of scratch now, since she's out of the influence peddling business.

So, hypothetically, if the foundation was to continue to achieve the same kind of donations in the future that its gotten in the past, you would admit that it was never about influence peddling?

Hypothetically, yes.. .I'd admit that I was wrong.

However, (I cant find the article now...), the Foundation's donations dropped by 60% or so in 2014. Which led many to believe that many of those foundation donors simply diverted the money to Clinton's campaign.

 Breotan wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The only thing this election had proved it that the republican party's lock-step approach to party loyalty has meant their voters placing party loyalty over decency, logic, and facts.

If the Republican party had any sort of "lock-step approach to party loyalty" then Trump would never have been the nominee.

No, it just means that they always vote for the person with R behind there name. It's got nothing to do with primaries.

 feeder wrote:
Hopefully. She needs to retire from politic s and spend her remaining years trying to do good for the world. Her karmic debt must be enormous.

The Clinton Foundation has brought heating to 100,000 babies across Asia and Africa. It's provided infant and maternal healthcare to 110 million people. Treated 36 million people for tropical diseases. Its ensured affordable access to HIV/AIDS medications for 11 million people.

What the feth have you done?

 Supertony51 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:
Somehow we got into the conversation about "Rape culture" (she is VERY VERY left wing) and how awful it is. I told her that I've had the privilege to travel the world and lived in countries where there is a real rape culture.

The next time you order a drink and get the wrong one, I hope you are content with your server reminding you how lucky you are that you have anything at all to drink, when so many people in the world have limited access to clean water.

that Anology isn't even remotely related.

In the U.S. Rapists are vilified, persecuted, and are imprisoned for long periods of time. Rape isn't a accepted part of our culture

.

Unless, of course, you are rich, famous, and powerful, which will allow you to force yourself onto women because you have the power and they do not. Like Trump did.

 Ouze wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:
Somehow we got into the conversation about "Rape culture" (she is VERY VERY left wing) and how awful it is. I told her that I've had the privilege to travel the world and lived in countries where there is a real rape culture.

The next time you order a drink and get the wrong one, I hope you are content with your server reminding you how lucky you are that you have anything at all to drink, when so many people in the world have limited access to clean water.

that Anology isn't even remotely related.

Of course it is. You're essentially making an insipid argument that nothing is really bad, as long as it's worse somewhere else.

It's the argument that people are making a huge deal about something that isn't real while ignoring where it is a huge deal. It's the "blame America first" crowd. Of course when you don't agree with their narrative they break out the "you're a white male!!" card.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:
Somehow we got into the conversation about "Rape culture" (she is VERY VERY left wing) and how awful it is. I told her that I've had the privilege to travel the world and lived in countries where there is a real rape culture.

The next time you order a drink and get the wrong one, I hope you are content with your server reminding you how lucky you are that you have anything at all to drink, when so many people in the world have limited access to clean water.

that Anology isn't even remotely related.

In the U.S. Rapists are vilified, persecuted, and are imprisoned for long periods of time. Rape isn't a accepted part of our culture

.

Unless, of course, you are rich, famous, and powerful, which will allow you to force yourself onto women because you have the power and they do not. Like Trump did.

Well we are not perfect, that's for sure, but it's rare enough that when it happens it makes national news.

 Supertony51 wrote:

In the U.S. Rapists are vilified, persecuted, and are imprisoned for long periods of time. Rape isn't a accepted part of our culture

In the M.E. Rape is considered a blemish on the honor of the family and the victims are often murdered or disfigured. Rape maybe isn't advocated, but it certainly isn't shunned

Huge difference between that and some dirty water.

Well, unless the rapists happens to be white, a star athlete of a college and drunk. Then they only get 3 months.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:

In the U.S. Rapists are vilified, persecuted, and are imprisoned for long periods of time. Rape isn't a accepted part of our culture

In the M.E. Rape is considered a blemish on the honor of the family and the victims are often murdered or disfigured. Rape maybe isn't advocated, but it certainly isn't shunned

Huge difference between that and some dirty water.

Well, unless the rapists happens to be white, a star athlete of a college and drunk. Then they only get 3 months.

That's a disgrace... yes.

He's facing a massive civil case too.

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

The foundation isn't going to get the same kind of scratch now, since she's out of the influence peddling business.

So, hypothetically, if the foundation was to continue to achieve the same kind of donations in the future that its gotten in the past, you would admit that it was never about influence peddling?

Hypothetically, yes.. .I'd admit that I was wrong.

However, (I cant find the article now...), the Foundation's donations dropped by 60% or so in 2014. Which led many to believe that many of those foundation donors simply diverted the money to Clinton's campaign.

Who are these "many" who believe that?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

The foundation isn't going to get the same kind of scratch now, since she's out of the influence peddling business.

So, hypothetically, if the foundation was to continue to achieve the same kind of donations in the future that its gotten in the past, you would admit that it was never about influence peddling?

Hypothetically, yes.. .I'd admit that I was wrong.

However, (I cant find the article now...), the Foundation's donations dropped by 60% or so in 2014. Which led many to believe that many of those foundation donors simply diverted the money to Clinton's campaign.

Who are these "many" who believe that?

How ever many people Whembly needs to make his point "valid"

 djones520 wrote:
Military conflicts Donald Trump has been involved in starting. Zero.

Military conflicts Hillary Clinton has been involved in starting. A lot.

Actions speak louder then words. Well... they used to at least. Seems they don't anymore.

Your logic here basically means anyone with zero involvement in world affairs will always be seen as better than someone who's actually been part of politics.

It's an incredible line of argument, basically.

 Supertony51 wrote:
In the U.S. Rapists are vilified, persecuted, and are imprisoned for long periods of time.

They are?

Man, this thread swiftly reminded why I had abandoned it.

 Frazzled wrote:
You must be confused. by US policy NATO is protected by the US against (now Russia) via the MAD strategy. That means we threaten to use nukes.

NATO is about a lot more than a nuclear pact. Conventional arms play a key part in the treaty. You know how the NATO standard 5.56mm round isn't a nuke, but is a bullet. Yeah.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:
In the U.S. Rapists are vilified, persecuted, and are imprisoned for long periods of time.

They are?

There are always exceptions to the rule.

The fact that there is so much indignation about this event proves that we don't have a "rape culture"

The judge is looking at loosing his seat, and that piece of gak kid is at Casey Anthony levels of national hate, any employer that does a Google search on his name will throw his application in the trash.

 Supertony51 wrote:
I can't speak for Trump supporters, since im not one, but many Trump "supporters" I know aren't so much enamored with the man as they are in hatred of the other side of the aisle.

The left and the media has spent the majority of the last 4 years labeling anyone who doesn't agree with their social agenda as Homophobic, xenophobic, racist, fascist, etc etc. When average everyday Americans who are just trying to live their lives and provide for their families are screamed at, labeled, and dismissed because of their skin color or opinions...eventually they just give the perpetrators the finger and vote for the guy who that side hates, out of spite.

Sure, but actually read what you just wrote and then ask how much of it applies to the running of a country. None of it does. It's just hurt feelings and bitterness, and nothing to do with governance policy.

 Supertony51 wrote:
There are always exceptions to the rule.

It's cute that you think he's the "exception."

 Supertony51 wrote:
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, im not a Trump supporter. I'm just pointing out that many people out there are so tired of being labeled stupid gak that they don't care anymore, and are more than happy to see many SJW's be pissed off.

And this would be what, the sixth or seventh time we've seen votes for Trump justified by hostility towards SJWs. I was amazed the first time we saw national politics treated as an extension of internet arguments, and now we've seen that argument repeated by different people I'm just in awe.

I mean, SJWs are self-righteous and annoying, I get it. But it has absolutely nothing to do with selecting who is most capable of running a country.

How do people not understand that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
No, criticising people for who they support is perfectly valid.

Whembly is right, criticising the voters is a bad political move. Whether they are actually idiots or not, it was still a clear blunder to do it.

 sebster wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, im not a Trump supporter. I'm just pointing out that many people out there are so tired of being labeled stupid gak that they don't care anymore, and are more than happy to see many SJW's be pissed off.

And this would be what, the sixth or seventh time we've seen votes for Trump justified by hostility towards SJWs. I was amazed the first time we saw national politics treated as an extension of internet arguments, and now we've seen that argument repeated by different people I'm just in awe.

I mean, SJWs are self-righteous and annoying, I get it. But it has absolutely nothing to do with selecting who is most capable of running a country.

How do people not understand that?

Nope.

With the ubiquitous of social media... are you really REALLY all that surprised?

 Supertony51 wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:
In the U.S. Rapists are vilified, persecuted, and are imprisoned for long periods of time.

They are?

There are always exceptions to the rule.

The fact that there is so much indignation about this event proves that we don't have a "rape culture"

The judge is looking at loosing his seat, and that piece of gak kid is at Casey Anthony levels of national hate, any employer that does a Google search on his name will throw his application in the trash.

Just to throw this out there... but, you do realize "rape culture" goes far beyond that actual action of rape, right?


We most definitely have a rape problem in the US... That swimming d-bag is not "the exception" to the rule, he's just the latest in a long string of examples.

But rather than focus on that, I'll bring up other politicians and media types who instantly go to "blame the victim" whenever evidence suggests a woman liked to wear nice clothing. Let's bring up the fact that, if you go onto damn near any MMO online today, you'll hear some 12 year old, pimply little gak screaming into their mic "OMFG, you just got RAPED!!! RAAAAAAAAAPED!!"
I mean hell, the video game thing alone tries to trivialize what is actually a horrible action perpetrated on people, we really don't need syndicated TV doing the politician thing in whatever crime drama is popular at the moment... but we do.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So if Zombie Hitler runs for president, we aren't allowed to call them nazis?

Edit: Also, weren't you the one going on about "leftists worshiping Castro" or some-such?

You and I would be free to say that Zombie Hitler's supporters are Nazis. Just as we were all able to call many of Trump's supporters racists. But it is different for the actual candidates, it just always looks bad when they say anything negative about a voter.

That rule doesn't apply to Trump, for some reason that guy could feth up daily and it didn't seem to matter. But the rules still applied to Clinton, and while that was certainly not fair, she knew it and would have known that basket of deplorables thing was a mistake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
So do it in a manner without labeling the groups as 'deplorables'.

Because if you don't, you'll never persuade them from voting for your preferred candidate.

Read the speach. It wasn't about winning the deplorables, it was about winning over the half of Trump voters who weren't deplorable, who were bothered by his long string of deplorable behaviour. It was about distinguishing the alt-right from the maintstream Republican voters.

It didn't work, obviously. It didn't work because it involved a politician saying something bad about voters, which is negative even if those voters are deplorable. And it didn't work because while many Republican voters are not deplorable, and don't like Trump... they're still partisan enough that they're not voting Democrat, either because of guns, or abortion, or because they bought in to the 'she's just as bad' nonsense, or whatever else, point is they turn out and vote Republican every two years and not even Donald fething Trump is gonna change that.

Really, we saw Clinton commit to the same strategy as her husband, Clinton triangulation, from the convention, when they brought out a bunch of centrist Republicans to talk about how terrible Trump is. Instead of pushing to energise the left, they looked to draw votes from the Republicans. Maybe that worked in the 90s (or maybe Bill Clinton benefited from a spoiler third party candidate), but it certainly didn't work in 2016, and given the partisan nature of politics today it was probably never going to work.

We'll be analyzing this for quite some time.

I think we probably have no idea. In fact, I'd say this year has shown we probably have no idea why anyone has ever voted, ever, it's just that in the past results were normal enough that we could craft nice sounding theories to rationalise what just happened.

Apart from the fact that it roughly describes US presidential and mid-terms elections from 2000 until now, the other reason I like my idea that Republicans turn out constantly, while the larger Democrat base gets lazy after holding the whitehouse for a period is really beacuse it is such a rough, simple theory. It doesn't pretend to any greater sophistication. The theory makes it clear how much of a guess it is, and that's a feature because we are all guessing about what the hell is going on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:
And the republicans nominated someone who has scammed thousands of americans, defrauded thousands, has active sexual assault cases against him and possibly raped a child

Yes, but Democrats have standards for their candidate. They get spooked by mere accusations against their candidate. Republicans turn out for the scammer who boasts about molesting women.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:


Edit: Also, weren't you the one going on about "leftists worshiping Castro" or some-such?

Yup. To this day, I can't see why Castro and his ilk (like fething Che) get a pass from those "on the left".

And he didn't win because racist got called racists.

I beg to differ... when a HRC spoken the 'deplorable' lines... that was a game changer (albeit, not recognized at the time).

He won because of abysmally low voter turnout in the swing states.

Again. Not true. In 2012:

Obama won Florida with 4.2 m votes. Trump won with 4.6 m votes.
Obama won Ohio with 2.8 m votes. Trump won with 2.7 m votes.
Obama won Pennsylvania with 2.9 m votes. Trump also won with 2.8 m votes.
Obama won N. Carolina with 2.1 m votes. Trump won with 2.3 m votes.
By then... it didn't matter 'cuz Trump won the EC.

MI and WI did have lower vote totals than 2012... but, then again, Obama isn't running.
sauce:
http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012

Clinton couldn't rile up the base, so they didn't come out to vote.

Very true.

He got less votes than Mcain, Romney,

Not true. Romney got 60 million ish... McCain got 59 million ish.

Trump is sitting at 62 million ish.

and HRC.

True. HRC got more popular vote. But, that isn't how this works.

The "Trump won because you called bigots out on their bigotry" is fething stupid right-wing BS. Are we supposed to just passively ignore racism, sexism, Islamophobia, ect? feth that.

*You* can do what you want.

IF the the goal is to persuade people to change their minds and that your preferred candidate is the right way to go... maybe calling Trump voters names isn't a good idea.

 whembly wrote:
I beg to differ. He actually flipped voters who voted for Obama twice. That's what's remarkable about this election.

True, but the exact number has been offered up by some (very weak) exit polls, and the exact number is really just speculation. So the idea of voters flipping from Obama to Trump shouldn't be dismissed (both ran as change candidates, both made explicit appeals to working class issues), but it should be taken in the context of Clinton still getting more votes than Trump did overall. So there wasn't this big move towards Trump or anything. What we need to talk about more is that Clinton got her improved votes in places that didn't matter, she won California by more than Obama, and lost Texas by less... neither of which helps at all. Meanwhile she lost Michigan, Wisconsin and a bunch of other swing states by around 1% each.

Part of this is just plain luck on the part of Trump - once margins get within 1% it's just luck whether they drop your way or to your opponent, and it just happens all those states dropped to Trump. The other part is that Clinton played a terrible strategic game, she never campaigned in Wisconsin, and put resources in to Michigan and Pennsylvania only at the very end, when they finally detected trouble in those states. Meanwhile the resources put in to Arizona and other red states sort of made sense as polls at times showed they might be Clinton gains, but strategically they made little sense as they only ever would have come on board in an election where Clinton had already won.

Trump didn't play that much smarter of a game. His early efforts in New York would have gone down in history as one of the stupidest electoral plays, except he won so it's forgotten. But he played a smart enough game to keep him in the contest, and Clinton played a dumb enough game to leave the door open for him. And on the day he snagged every state he had to, just barely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
If the Republican party had any sort of "lock-step approach to party loyalty" then Trump would never have been the nominee.

As I read recently, party establishment is weak, but partisanship is strong.

In other words, there's no great love for the Republicans and their leadership, in many cases there's open contempt. Trump was able to run with that feeling to win the primary. Most Republican voters wouldn't have been happy with Trump as their nominee, but at the end of they day they still turned out and voted Republican, because partisanship is strong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Hypothetically, yes.. .I'd admit that I was wrong.

However, (I cant find the article now...), the Foundation's donations dropped by 60% or so in 2014.

It jumps and drops from year to year, based on project activity and fundraising drives, same as many charities. If it dropped 60% and never picked up again, that would mean something. Let's see what happens in 2017 and onwards.

Which led many to believe that many of those foundation donors simply diverted the money to Clinton's campaign.

Oh look, more rumours and speculation. I can play this game to. Maybe it didn't go to Clinton's campaign, maybe it went to fund the child sex slave ring uncovered by pizzagate? Maybe it went to Donald Trump, to bribe him to run as a Republican because we all know he's secretly a Democrat?

Come on mate, donations of any major size are known. If the donor list swapped from the Foundation to her campaign, people would pick up the similarities. No such similarities were picked up because...

 sebster wrote:

Read the speach. It wasn't about winning the deplorables, it was about winning over the half of Trump voters who weren't deplorable, who were bothered by his long string of deplorable behaviour. It was about distinguishing the alt-right from the maintstream Republican voters.

Of course.

When that came out, we didn't know if it made any impact.

The problem with this, is that now the punditry had to defend/castigate this. I think with social media, other folks picked it up to defend it become part of a self-fulfilling prophesy that the Clinton campaign couldn't corral.

It didn't work, obviously. It didn't work because it involved a politician saying something bad about voters, which is negative even if those voters are deplorable. And it didn't work because while many Republican voters are not deplorable, and don't like Trump... they're still partisan enough that they're not voting Democrat, either because of guns, or abortion, or because they bought in to the 'she's just as bad' nonsense, or whatever else, point is they turn out and vote Republican every two years and not even Donald fething Trump is gonna change that.

No. As Obama showed, if the Democrat nominated a more exciting candidate, Trump wouldn't been this successful (look at me, I've been wrong before, so I may be wrong here so who knows).

Really, we saw Clinton commit to the same strategy as her husband, Clinton triangulation, from the convention, when they brought out a bunch of centrist Republicans to talk about how terrible Trump is. Instead of pushing to energise the left, they looked to draw votes from the Republicans. Maybe that worked in the 90s (or maybe Bill Clinton benefited from a spoiler third party candidate), but it certainly didn't work in 2016, and given the partisan nature of politics today it was probably never going to work.

No. She really didn't move at all. In fact, she didn't campaign as much as she should've... it appeared they were 'coasting' towards the end.

We'll be analyzing this for quite some time.

I think we probably have no idea. In fact, I'd say this year has shown we probably have no idea why anyone has ever voted, ever, it's just that in the past results were normal enough that we could craft nice sounding theories to rationalise what just happened.

Apart from the fact that it roughly describes US presidential and mid-terms elections from 2000 until now, the other reason I like my idea that Republicans turn out constantly, while the larger Democrat base gets lazy after holding the whitehouse for a period is really beacuse it is such a rough, simple theory. It doesn't pretend to any greater sophistication. The theory makes it clear how much of a guess it is, and that's a feature because we are all guessing about what the hell is going on.

Eh... I'm sure it's more complex than that.

Obama showed how the Democrats can win, even when the Republicans did vote in droves in 2012.

We'll see if your theory holds in 2018. I suspect the Democrats will be storming back... in the House at least.

 whembly wrote:
Nope.

With the ubiquitous of social media... are you really REALLY all that surprised?

Fair point, it seems social media is taking up an increasing part of people's identities, and that is naturally flowing in politics. And the internet is all about spiteful little arguments, so I guess it is natural that people take their position in internet arguments and apply them to their politics. "Hmm, which candidate is saying mean things about the people I argue with on-line, I better vote for them."

fething hell, I'm trying not to get cynical about all this but man it is hard.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Nope.

With the ubiquitous of social media... are you really REALLY all that surprised?

Fair point, it seems social media is taking up an increasing part of people's identities, and that is naturally flowing in politics. And the internet is all about spiteful little arguments, so I guess it is natural that people take their position in internet arguments and apply them to their politics. "Hmm, which candidate is saying mean things about the people I argue with on-line, I better vote for them."

fething hell, I'm trying not to get cynical about all this but man it is hard.

Hey man... ever heard the expression that politics is downstream from culture?

Add the internet/blogs/twitter/facebook/IG/whathaveyous... factor that by 100.

Just watch. Both parties are going to be extremely aggressive in these ecosystems.

 whembly wrote:
Of course.

When that came out, we didn't know if it made any impact.

Iirc it moved the polls a little. But some pretty interesting work done late in the campaign showed that most poll movements were likely due to changes in response rate, not actual voting commitments. I find it hard to believe there was anyone out there who was not a Trump voter, who then decided to vote for Trump after that comment, nor is it unlikely that there was any Clinton supporter who suddenly left after that comment. What it might have done was make it less likely for Clinton to win voters over, away from Trump, but then it's pretty likely that there were bugger all such voters in the first place.

No. As Obama showed, if the Democrat nominated a more exciting candidate, Trump wouldn't been this successful (look at me, I've been wrong before, so I may be wrong here so who knows).

Maybe, last time one party won the presidency for a third term was 1988. The last time Democrats managed to win the presidency after a two term Democrat was van Buren's win in 1836. Running against that historic trend was a real issue for Clinton.

Beyond that, I don't deny that a different Democrat might have done better, but that's not what my point was. My point is that good candidate or bad, Republicans get their steady 60m votes. In 2004 with rally around the flag in full effect Bush was able to summon 62m votes. Then in 2008, with Bush's favourability having collapsed to historically low levels, with the GFC driving financial collapse, the Republican vote count dropped just 2m, down to 60m. The next election, with the great white meh Romney, Republicans still scored 61m votes. This year, with holy gak how did this happen Donald Trump running as their candidate, Republicans got 62m votes, maybe 63m by the end of counting.

In contrast, in those same elections Democrats, Kerry got 59m in 2004, Obama pushed that up by 9m to 68m in 2008, then he dropped back to 66m in 2012, and then Clinton got 65.5m in 2016.

The Democratic vote range is 59m to 68m. The Republican vote range is 60m to 63m.

No. She really didn't move at all. In fact, she didn't campaign as much as she should've... it appeared they were 'coasting' towards the end.

I'm not sure what 'moving' had to do with my point. Clinton decided early on to build her campaign around her husband's successful strategy of triangulation - targeting left and right wing policies with centrist appeal and building a new base of support there. My point is that it didn't work, because the centre of US politics is empty. All the numbers, at least among likely voters, are one side or the other, and not that many will flip.

Eh... I'm sure it's more complex than that.

Of course its more complex. Again, I said the reason I like the theory is that it's simple, and it shows clearly how simple it is. It doesn't dress itself up as anything more than what it is.

Obama showed how the Democrats can win, even when the Republicans did vote in droves in 2012.

61m isn't droves. It is less than Trump got this year, it is less than Bush got in 2004.

And of course Democrats can win. Since 1992 they've won the whitehouse convincingly four times, while Republicans have had 1 convincing win and 2 very narrow, almost coin flip wins.

The problem Democrats have is everything other than the presidency. The gerrymander in the house makes control there almost impossible without an overwhelming win, the senate is structured around states, meaning the Republican dominance in the smaller states is a big advantage over the Democrats strength in fewer but more populous states. But those issues are minor compared to the Democrats hopeless game at the state level.

If I was setting Democrat strategy I wouldn't worry about the presidency. That will flip as it always does, and if Trump is as hopeless as signs indicate, it might even flip ahead of schedule, in 4 years. Instead I'd worry about rebuilding the party to win state legislatures and governorships, because state politics really matters, and because state legislatures will be setting the new district boundaries after the 2020 census, and that gives an opportunity to reset everything to fair boundaries.

We'll see if your theory holds in 2018. I suspect the Democrats will be storming back... in the House at least.

Probably the most likely result is Democrats making gains in the house (if they break even in the senate it will be an achievement). Democrats may even more votes than Republicans in the house, thought not win control (due to the gerrymander). But it's also possible that Trump will still be in cruise mode, most people will have spent two years tuned out of politics. It's even possible that Trump might manage to not screw up anything important by then, or at least not have screwed up, anything too major.

I guess it depends on whether Republicans actually push ahead with screwing about with healthcare some more, pushing their rich people tax cut through, and whether people in the rust belt notice the jobs still haven't come back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Hey man... every heard the expression that politics is downstream from culture?

That's a great line. Stolen

Add the internet/blogs/twitter/facebook/IG/whathaveyous... factor that by 100.

Just watch. Both parties are going to be extremely aggressive in these ecosystems.

Hey, I've been calling for the Democrats to start moving to the left for a while now. Not just because of the echo chamber internet thing, though that certainly will play a part.

 Ouze wrote:
Man, this thread swiftly reminded why I had abandoned it.

By Felicia


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:
In the U.S. Rapists are vilified, persecuted, and are imprisoned for long periods of time.

They are?

There are always exceptions to the rule.

The fact that there is so much indignation about this event proves that we don't have a "rape culture"

The judge is looking at loosing his seat, and that piece of gak kid is at Casey Anthony levels of national hate, any employer that does a Google search on his name will throw his application in the trash.

Just to throw this out there... but, you do realize "rape culture" goes far beyond that actual action of rape, right?


We most definitely have a rape problem in the US... That swimming d-bag is not "the exception" to the rule, he's just the latest in a long string of examples.

But rather than focus on that, I'll bring up other politicians and media types who instantly go to "blame the victim" whenever evidence suggests a woman liked to wear nice clothing. Let's bring up the fact that, if you go onto damn near any MMO online today, you'll hear some 12 year old, pimply little gak screaming into their mic "OMFG, you just got RAPED!!! RAAAAAAAAAPED!!"
I mean hell, the video game thing alone tries to trivialize what is actually a horrible action perpetrated on people, we really don't need syndicated TV doing the politician thing in whatever crime drama is popular at the moment... but we do.

I actually blame the left for diluting the meaning and impact of rape.

You can only cry wolf so many times before people quit believing you.

I've never seen someone respond to two different posts at the same time while adding so little to the actual conversation.