I remember pictures of Bush and Obama after they got that briefing and they both looked deeply disturbed like they had seen a ghost. I don't know what they tell people but its really kind of scary.
Also whatever it is, Hillary already knew it.
Case NIGHTMARE. (See Stross' "Laundry Files" series.)
(or, if you prefer a little less eldritch in your doomsday scenarios, "Paris is a lie; we're already past the point of no return, and looking at human extinction within __ years.")
the electoral college is anti-democratic full stop, in the sense that it distorts or outright contravenes the popular vote outcome. But it is one of many anti-democratic mechanisms within a larger democratic system.
I think we should do away with it, but the biggest part of peacefully transitioning power is abiding by the results of these previously-agreed-upon systems.
What? No, the electoral college is a facet of a representative democracy. Just because you're not happy with the outcome doesn't make it illegitimate.
+2
Options
Dr_KeenbeanDumb as a buttPlanet Express ShipRegistered Userregular
That petition is totally going to get the requisite number of signatures. It won't do anything and the tweets saying 'make your voice heard!' gave me a chuckle.
That ship has already sailed into a tangerine iceberg, kids.
Guys torturing yourself with these faithless EV fantasy votes isn't helping you cope in the long run. Yes, this election is different. Yes it very much seems like Trump has some level of ties to Russia. Yes he's a piece of shit monster for a variety of reasons.
However unless some serious fucking evidence is dropped before the EC Vote, none of these fantasies are going to happen and there is zero reason to believe that evidence is forthcoming.
It isn't healthy for your brain meats
I'd argue that none of this discussion is really productive, but it's therapeutic, so let everyone have it.
- No, the electors will not go faithless.
- No, we will not get rid of the EC.
- No, we will not make gains in the midterms.
- No, there will never another D president again.
Fascism won, and democracy is dead (at the federal level). The last time this occurred, the entire world went to war. Who's going to be able to free us from our authoritarian overlords?
And I did hear her potential third term referred to as "Bill's third term." Both positively and negatively. Which, given Hillary, is stupid anyway. But it just shouldn't even be a thing.
I forget the exact wording, but Hillary's team was having her test a line pretty early in the primary. She repeated it a few times. "What did everyone not like about the 90s, the peace or the prosperity?" Cute, right? But the modern means of communications being what they are that line was quickly dropped as they got to hear from a lot of people about what part of the 90s they didn't like. There were a lot of things the people around Clinton were clueless about.
What DID they hate about the 90?! The $360bn in national debt you paid off? Having the most diverse cabinet in your history? The 22 million jobs created? The increase in wages at all income levels? The lowest unemployment rate for 20 years? The lowest crime rate for 26 years? The Family and Maternity Leave Act? The lowest child mortality rate in your history? The millions of acres of land protected in 48 states? The 1,700 former soviet nuclear warheads deactivated? The peace treaties negotiated in Northern Ireland and the Middle East?
Those are the things that mean we SHOULD have run on that. We stopped because there were some people who were (accurately) upset about us calling the 90s some glorious time of opportunity. LGBTQ, feminists etc. However, what we've learned from this election is that if we want to win, then we need to be comfortable with us making some references which make some of our closest supporters upset.
So yes, the 90's may have sucked for you. Here in detail on our website is the policy decisions we intend to put into action which means that we're going to have a 90's economy which brings you along for the ride too. But here, in my big speech? We're having Bill Clinton term 3! Two presidents for the price of one! An economic boom which will NEVER END!
the electoral college is anti-democratic full stop, in the sense that it distorts or outright contravenes the popular vote outcome. But it is one of many anti-democratic mechanisms within a larger democratic system.
I think we should do away with it, but the biggest part of peacefully transitioning power is abiding by the results of these previously-agreed-upon systems.
What? No, the electoral college is a facet of a representative democracy. Just because you're not happy with the outcome doesn't make it illegitimate.
It's a stupid kludge because the Founders couldn't settle the slavery dispute. Nobody else does anything like this stupid nonsense.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
the electoral college is anti-democratic full stop, in the sense that it distorts or outright contravenes the popular vote outcome. But it is one of many anti-democratic mechanisms within a larger democratic system.
I think we should do away with it, but the biggest part of peacefully transitioning power is abiding by the results of these previously-agreed-upon systems.
What? No, the electoral college is a facet of a representative democracy. Just because you're not happy with the outcome doesn't make it illegitimate.
Faithless electors are also a facet of a representative democracy.
+2
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I had sort of thought that the EC was because it would have taken a while back in the day to communicate between the farther states and DC. So I pictured all the X electors from Colorado or wherever sat up on horses after the states election and went to DC to represent.
That was my head canon.
PSN: Honkalot
+2
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
I had sort of thought that the EC was because it would have taken a while back in the day to communicate between the farther states and DC. So I pictured all the X electors from Colorado or wherever sat up on horses after the states election and went to DC to represent.
I've participated in five elections. A full 40% saw the candidate for whom the most people voted passed over in favor of a born-rich New England white man, because of the intricacies of rules locked into place by New England rich white men 200 years before I was born.
I'm allowed to be a little despondent about the status of democracy.
+23
Options
Dr. ChaosPost nuclear nuisanceRegistered Userregular
edited November 2016
One of the arguments I see coming out of this is that this is the fault of liberals condemning people and that we have to be nicer to the other side.
The frustration of the more progressive in this country is at an all time high. They're angry and after decades of seeing the pattern repeat itself (LGBT rights being held back, unarmed black people getting shot like clockwork, getting involved in more wars, etc) only to do more damage, some people are pretty fucking tired of trying to be nice.
I had sort of thought that the EC was because it would have taken a while back in the day to communicate between the farther states and DC. So I pictured all the X electors from Colorado or wherever sat up on horses after the states election and went to DC to represent.
I had sort of thought that the EC was because it would have taken a while back in the day to communicate between the farther states and DC. So I pictured all the X electors from Colorado or wherever sat up on horses after the states election and went to DC to represent.
That was my head canon.
Nope. It was because they couldn't figure out how to elect a chief executive. So they came up with a tremendously stupid system that would inevitably explode. And almost immediately did and they had to change it with the 12th amendment. Which made better, but still idiotic.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
the electoral college is anti-democratic full stop, in the sense that it distorts or outright contravenes the popular vote outcome. But it is one of many anti-democratic mechanisms within a larger democratic system.
I think we should do away with it, but the biggest part of peacefully transitioning power is abiding by the results of these previously-agreed-upon systems.
What? No, the electoral college is a facet of a representative democracy. Just because you're not happy with the outcome doesn't make it illegitimate.
I'm not sure how you get that from my post tbh
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
One of the arguments I see coming out of this is that this is the fault of liberals condemning people and that we have to be nicer to the other side.
The frustration of the more progressive in this country is at an all time high. They're angry and after decades of seeing the pattern repeat itself (LGBT rights being held back, unarmed black people getting shot like clockwork, getting involved in more wars, etc) only to do more damage, some people are pretty fucking tired of trying to be nice.
I'm not gonna lie: shoving their concerns to the periphery and sucking up to Midwestern whites is feeling more appealing right now that risking another loss like this
This picture was not taken on Thursday, but rather a day earlier as Obama spoke in a live televised address after Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton conceded to Trump. Their expressions reflect how they felt watching their soon-to-be former boss give one of his last major speeches, not their emotions as they saw his successor arrive at the White House for the first time. That may seem minor, but it’s a big distinction, especially for those on Twitter who sought to read a lot into the photo.
To the people arguing that we should implement a law to do away with the Electoral College, that is unfortunately not how it works. It would require an amendment to the US Constitution, barring something unlikely such as enough states agreeing to cast their electors for the national vote winner (generally called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact). Good luck getting states like Montana (California has 69 times the population, but 18 times the electoral votes) to give up their influence on who gets to be President.
luckily we don't need all the little states,
just enough of the big ones
At a bare minimum, without accounting for future changes in population, you would need:
California
Texas
New York
Florida
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Ohio
Michigan
Georgia
North Carolina
New Jersey
Of these 11 states, the following are signed up:
California
New York
Illinois
New Jersey
In addition, several others are signed on:
Washington
Massachusetts
Maryland
Rhode Island
Hawaii
Vermont
D.C.
Giving a total of 165, with 105 left to go. Arizona, Michigan and Pennsylvania have bills pending, which could (but probably won't) bring the total up to 212. That leaves at least 58 more. What path forward is there from that (optimistic) point? I could see Oregon (7) and Colorado (9). Maybe Virginia (13) and North Carolina (15). Now it's 256, 14 more to go. Texas (38) would obviously get you there, as would Florida (29) or Ohio (18). Otherwise you'll need at least two more states on top of this highly optimistic list.
The simple truth is that you're going to have to get a traditionally red state, or one of the swing states, to sign onto the compact. It's theoretically possible, but it doesn't seem very likely with the way politics are currently. Perhaps if Clinton can win the final popular vote tally by over 2 million votes it might gain some traction, if people are willing to bang the drum on how undemocratic the result is. I fully support the compact, and it's not like unlikely things haven't happened in the recent past, so if we can get this implemented I will be pleased. It just isn't going to be easy.
(If that's too small, it's a word cloud about what voters have heard about Trump/Clinton)
In this election, that's the problem. I think the 2010/2014 elections are the reason to indict the Democratic establishment more generally.
It was a problem, one of the problems. It was enabled by who we choose to run. And yeah, the media didn't help. But we dropped the ball, threw interceptions, and didn't have a good offensive line. We can't just yell at the refs because they made bad calls, we have to fix our damn team too.
One of the arguments I see coming out of this is that this is the fault of liberals condemning people and that we have to be nicer to the other side.
The frustration of the more progressive in this country is at an all time high. They're angry and after decades of seeing the pattern repeat itself (LGBT rights being held back, unarmed black people getting shot like clockwork, getting involved in more wars, etc) only to do more damage, some people are pretty fucking tired of trying to be nice.
I'm not gonna lie: shoving their concerns to the periphery and sucking up to Midwestern whites is feeling more appealing right now that risking another loss like this
On being nicer to the other side: Thinking that there are hardened sides in this is part of the problem in the first place. Every time an "SJW" completely loses their head at a "reasonable" racist online, there are people in the middle who see that exchange and side with the racist. The sides are fungible, and angrily expelling our vitriol in emotional catharsis towards "the other side" only grows and empowers it.
This isn't a fucking moral battle. It's a political one. You don't get points for being right; you only get points for convincing other people you're right. There are consequences for not being nice, just like there are consequences for not being nice at work or not being nice at school, so yeah, sometimes you suck it up because you don't want to lose an election just like how sometimes you suck it up because you don't want to lose your job.
Winning AND being right > losing and being right > winning and being wrong
(If that's too small, it's a word cloud about what voters have heard about Trump/Clinton)
In this election, that's the problem. I think the 2010/2014 elections are the reason to indict the Democratic establishment more generally.
It was a problem, one of the problems. It was enabled by who we choose to run. And yeah, the media didn't help. But we dropped the ball, threw interceptions, and didn't have a good offensive line. We can't just yell at the refs because they made bad calls, we have to fix our damn team too.
This is a word map based on media coverage. Please point on the map where you see any words related to policy.
It's entirely the media's fault. Clinton talked about what she would do to help <everyone> constantly, but you wouldn't know it from anyone reporting on her. They are 100% to blame for depressing D voter and handing the election to Donald.
Guys torturing yourself with these faithless EV fantasy votes isn't helping you cope in the long run. Yes, this election is different. Yes it very much seems like Trump has some level of ties to Russia. Yes he's a piece of shit monster for a variety of reasons.
However unless some serious fucking evidence is dropped before the EC Vote, none of these fantasies are going to happen and there is zero reason to believe that evidence is forthcoming.
It isn't healthy for your brain meats
I'd argue that none of this discussion is really productive, but it's therapeutic, so let everyone have it.
- No, the electors will not go faithless.
- No, we will not get rid of the EC.
- No, we will not make gains in the midterms.
- No, there will never another D president again.
Fascism won, and democracy is dead (at the federal level). The last time this occurred, the entire world went to war. Who's going to be able to free us from our authoritarian overlords?
I remember hearing earlier during the primaries (and don't quote me on this I can't find the original article) that the Clinton campaign was -hoping- for a Trump victory in the Republican primaries and were more fearful of going up against Cruz or Rubio in the general election.
That was apparently just overestimating people. I don't think any of us really thought that the public would go for someone like trump beyond the guys that would vote for a pumpkin if it was in the republican ticket.
Turns out, yeah, people do go for the liar that sells simple solutions that are not in any way connected with reality and who is also a racist asshole and a bully on the side.
“It was a mismanaged campaign from the start, 150 percent,” one aide said. “There was so much stuff that needed fixing. I thought we might have learned some lessons from the primary. But as you can tell from last night, probably not.”
Less than 24 hours after the mood at the Clinton election night party at the Jacob Javits Convention Center turned from celebratory to funereal, aides wondered how they could have lost so badly, why they didn’t see it coming, and how the Democrat could have lost to Trump.
One surrogate blamed the poor sampling models and analytics that the campaign was so reliant on. It hadn’t done traditional tracking polls for the last month.
Other aides and surrogates pointed to an arrogance that came from the top.
I mean, it's the hill...but still, wow.
If they had won we would only be hearing about what an amazing campaign it was. This close to the election, this is all emotion driven overreaction.
Or, hear me out here, it's the truth. It explains the extravagant party coupled with the smashing in the rustbelt. Sure, equally unbelievable but it does explain it on some level.
Titanic fundraising advantage plus all the polls telling you you're going to cruise to victory explains the extravagant party. She had money to burn and everyone left right and center telling her it was in the bag.
I heard a quote on election night that even a Trump campaign staffer told someone in the media "It'd take a miracle for us to win tonight". Very few people saw this coming and now people are looking at it in emotional hindsight and pointing fingers. No reasonable dissection of the campaign will come out for months.
“It was a mismanaged campaign from the start, 150 percent,” one aide said. “There was so much stuff that needed fixing. I thought we might have learned some lessons from the primary. But as you can tell from last night, probably not.”
Less than 24 hours after the mood at the Clinton election night party at the Jacob Javits Convention Center turned from celebratory to funereal, aides wondered how they could have lost so badly, why they didn’t see it coming, and how the Democrat could have lost to Trump.
One surrogate blamed the poor sampling models and analytics that the campaign was so reliant on. It hadn’t done traditional tracking polls for the last month.
Other aides and surrogates pointed to an arrogance that came from the top.
I mean, it's the hill...but still, wow.
If they had won we would only be hearing about what an amazing campaign it was. This close to the election, this is all emotion driven overreaction.
Or, hear me out here, it's the truth. It explains the extravagant party coupled with the smashing in the rustbelt. Sure, equally unbelievable but it does explain it on some level.
Titanic fundraising advantage plus all the polls telling you you're going to cruise to victory explains the extravagant party. She had money to burn and everyone left right and center telling her it was in the bag.
I heard a quote on election night that even a Trump campaign staffer told someone in the media "It'd take a miracle for us to win tonight". Very few people saw this coming and now people are looking at it in emotional hindsight and pointing fingers. No reasonable dissection of the campaign will come out for months.
There are way too many people looking for one thing, that one thing. There's no one thing. You don't lose a game on a single play, never mind a 2-year presidential election campaign.
I remember hearing earlier during the primaries (and don't quote me on this I can't find the original article) that the Clinton campaign was -hoping- for a Trump victory in the Republican primaries and were more fearful of going up against Cruz or Rubio in the general election.
That was apparently just overestimating people. I don't think any of us really thought that the public would go for someone like trump beyond the guys that would vote for a pumpkin if it was in the republican ticket.
Turns out, yeah, people do go for the liar that sells simple solutions that are not in any way connected with reality and who is also a racist asshole and a bully on the side.
Again speak for yourself. I entirely expected this, expressly because most people want to be told there are simple solutions no matter how disconnected from reality those solutions are.
(If that's too small, it's a word cloud about what voters have heard about Trump/Clinton)
In this election, that's the problem. I think the 2010/2014 elections are the reason to indict the Democratic establishment more generally.
It was a problem, one of the problems. It was enabled by who we choose to run. And yeah, the media didn't help. But we dropped the ball, threw interceptions, and didn't have a good offensive line. We can't just yell at the refs because they made bad calls, we have to fix our damn team too.
This is a word map based on media coverage. Please point on the map where you see any words related to policy.
It's entirely the media's fault. Clinton talked about what she would do to help <everyone> constantly, but you wouldn't know it from anyone reporting on her. They are 100% to blame for depressing D voter and handing the election to Donald.
No, dude. That is shortsighted. You cannot lay the blame for this entirely at the feet of the media, they only represent part of the whole picture. We went with a candidate we knew had these problems, but we thought being a policy wonk with a popular president and a good enough economy would make up for it. It didn't. She didn't resonate with enough voters in the parts of the country that she needed to win. If your optics are gonna be about being a part of the problem, a symbol of corruption, a Washington insider, then you could not win 2016. If the zeitgeist continues, you cannot win 2018 or 2020 either.
And what are we going to do to fix "the media" in the case of it being "entirely the media's fault"? We've got no legislative leverage over them, and they profited handily from a horse race. If that's what gets you coverage, if that's what gets your voters to show up in the places you need them, then we need to pushing the firebrand using revolutionary language.
Theoretically smart people in the Democratic Party should have known that. And yet they worked giddily to clear the field for her. Every power-hungry young Democrat fresh out of law school, every rising lawmaker, every old friend of the Clintons wanted a piece of the action. This was their ride up the power chain. The whole edifice was hollow, built atop the same unearned sense of inevitability that surrounded Clinton in 2008, and it collapsed, just as it collapsed in 2008, only a little later in the calendar. The voters of the party got taken for a ride by the people who controlled it, the ones who promised they had everything figured out and sneeringly dismissed anyone who suggested otherwise. They promised that Hillary Clinton had a lock on the Electoral College. These people didn’t know what they were talking about, and too many of us in the media thought they did.
We should blame all those people around the Clintons more than the Clintons themselves, and the Clintons themselves deserve a ridiculous amount of blame. Hillary Clinton was just an ambitious person who wanted to be president. There are a lot of people like that. But she was enabled. The Democratic establishment is a club unwelcoming to outsiders, because outsiders don’t first look out for the club. The Clintons will be gone now. For the sake of the country, let them take the hangers-on with them.
What was the line? Hillary Clinton would do well in a general election, because she’d been “vetted” for 20-some years and there was nothing new Republicans could try? Just writing that, I recognize that it’s the funniest line I’ve ever seen, and yet it was the exact argument Clinton used in two separate campaigns for the Democratic nomination.
The ace ground game, the brilliant ad-makers, the top Hollywood talent, and the best analytics operation ever assembled? This was all a joke. The best analytics team in the world, apparently, couldn’t find in their numbers that it was worth making a single stop to Wisconsin following the convention in a campaign against a Republican whose base appeal was in the Rust Belt. Not that an extra visit would have changed the result.
...
The few Democratic leaders who remain are going to say that it was just a bad note struck here or there, or the lazy Bernie voters who didn’t show up, or Jim Comey, or unfair media coverage of Clinton’s emails, to blame for this loss. I am already seeing Democrats blaming the Electoral College, which until a few hours ago was hailed as the great protector of Democratic virtue for decades to come, and Republicans were silly for not understanding how to crack the blue “wall.” They will say, just wait for Republicans to overreach. Then we’ll be fine.
Don’t listen to any of this. Everything is not OK. This is not OK.
Once again for everyone wanting to go with the full burn it down and start fresh approach to the DNC I emplore you to please, PLEASE check the Hiberno-Brittanic politics thread and read up on the British Labour Party. Don't make the same mistakes.
I'd also like to remind everyone that Trump won Wisconsin by 27,000 votes. Up to 300,000 voters were turned away by the state's strict Voter ID laws.
If you want to tear something apart I'd start there.
I only have a cursory familiarity with Corbyn, so let me iterate my priorities. There are a handful of issues that I'll show up for no matter what, and Democrats will always be the best choice on most of them so I'm always in. But there is one thing I will not put with in general elections, and that is losers. If winning is not what you're about, then you need to fucking go. And the collective that made decisions at the DNC is a catastrophic group of whatever the opposite of kingmaker is.
Which is great in theory, but in practice it was virtually the same team that got Obama elected twice.
Which should be a great big flashing red alert with ear splitting klaxon sound effect that something else is going on here.
No, there was no team that winnowed a field for Obama. He had to work hard for all he got in 2008, and when he hit the general he was as tested as any candidate could be. And the lessons the Democrats learned from that is they needed more obstacles in 2016 for anyone who wanted to challenge Clinton. And the people who made those decisions need to explain why they belong where they do.
And yes, Obama did have a team, a phenomenal one. Joel Benenson, Clinton's chief strategist and pollster, was on Obama's team in 2008 and again in 2012. Before that, he was on Bill Clinton's campaign in 1996. Jim Margolis, Clinton's media advisor, was also on Obama's campaign in 2008 and 2012. Jake Sullivan, Clinton's senior policy advisor, Marlon Marshall, her director of state campaigning, LaDavia Drane, her congressional liaison, Kane Miller, Jorge Neri, Chris Wyant, Corey Dukes, all of those people were part of the campaign team that got Obama elected in 2008, and most worked with him in the White House or on his 2012 campaign.
There's your losers. Feel free to kick them out of the DNC.
Yeah, there are talented people on Clinton's team. And Loads of grifters and self interested hacks who paved the way to this disaster.
Right now I'm filled with rage at this party, and someone needs to take the end of it. I doubt I'm alone in this. It can't be Clinton, let's say that's not productive, and it can't be her voters, because we're all allies and we need to live together. But it's not nobody. There are Democrats who are responsible for this, I want their balls, and it'll be good for everyone to have certified set of bastards who are to blame. I don't want to hear about Comey, or the media, or Jill Stein. If that doesn't happen, I guarantee you there'll be nothing but finger pointing and everyone losing an eye in no time.
Conveniently, it is their fault, so fuck 'em. Nothing of value will be lost.
It can be nobody though. Between wikileaks, and comey, and the media, and voter suppression there certainly is a lot of very justifable blame to go around there.
And when you say "its totally the DNC" you do somehow fail to note any specific action that they should have taken that would have mattered. You have said that they should do things that they both did and that they tried to do. And you have said that they should not do things that they did not do. You want them to tap into a group of supporters who rejected their natural allies. They simply cannot do that without your help. They did, of course, try. They were conciliatory, they changed the platform, they did basically everything they possibly could without losing the larger group of people who voted for the winner
Like seriously are you going to pin this on a weak slogan? Over wikileaks, comey, and media incompetence? Seriously? You're going to pin it on weak turnout operations? Which as far as we can tell is the most competent and sophisticated in history? Bad polling when everyone got the polling wrong kind of indicates a legitimate October surprise?
Like I am all for some good old fashioned problem solving. But gotdamn its got to be a real problem that we can actually solve!
I didn't believe this today, out of the blue. That the DNC is a disaster waiting to happen precisely because of this reason is what I said in March and April. I didn't need yesterday to learn that the DNC is run by an irresponsible set of hacks.
The DNC is not a disaster run by irresponsible hacks. Least of all because you don't like the results of the primary... that was rigged for your candidate.
It was a problem, one of the problems. It was enabled by who we choose to run. And yeah, the media didn't help. But we dropped the ball, threw interceptions, and didn't have a good offensive line. We can't just yell at the refs because they made bad calls, we have to fix our damn team too.
OK but what were the actual ball dropping, interceptions and weak offensive line? Because from where i am sitting we trounced em in every aspect. Except the refs called our interceptions dropped balls. And our touchdowns incomplete passes... despite us sitting in the endzone with the ball in our hands long after the whistle.
What is the thing that we didn't do? That we should have done? That we did but should not have?
"Democrats didn't offer anything for the rust belt" "well actually we did and here is us speaking about those plants" "but they didn't say it in a debate" "well not a general debate no, but a primary debate yes. And we can't talk about domestic policy in a debate if the media does not ask about it in the domestic policy debate"
Posts
Case NIGHTMARE ORANGE
What? No, the electoral college is a facet of a representative democracy. Just because you're not happy with the outcome doesn't make it illegitimate.
That ship has already sailed into a tangerine iceberg, kids.
3DS: 1650-8480-6786
Switch: SW-0653-8208-4705
I'd argue that none of this discussion is really productive, but it's therapeutic, so let everyone have it.
- No, the electors will not go faithless.
- No, we will not get rid of the EC.
- No, we will not make gains in the midterms.
- No, there will never another D president again.
Fascism won, and democracy is dead (at the federal level). The last time this occurred, the entire world went to war. Who's going to be able to free us from our authoritarian overlords?
No one.
Those are the things that mean we SHOULD have run on that. We stopped because there were some people who were (accurately) upset about us calling the 90s some glorious time of opportunity. LGBTQ, feminists etc. However, what we've learned from this election is that if we want to win, then we need to be comfortable with us making some references which make some of our closest supporters upset.
So yes, the 90's may have sucked for you. Here in detail on our website is the policy decisions we intend to put into action which means that we're going to have a 90's economy which brings you along for the ride too. But here, in my big speech? We're having Bill Clinton term 3! Two presidents for the price of one! An economic boom which will NEVER END!
Trapped in recriminations of the past, rather than dreams of the future.
Unfortunately, we cannot change the past, only the future.
Jesus
This is going to be an absolute nightmare of a cabinet
It's a stupid kludge because the Founders couldn't settle the slavery dispute. Nobody else does anything like this stupid nonsense.
Faithless electors are also a facet of a representative democracy.
That was my head canon.
If that pans out.. and the pres gets his official state-run TV and such.. hmm.
that's the electoral cavalry
I'm allowed to be a little despondent about the status of democracy.
The frustration of the more progressive in this country is at an all time high. They're angry and after decades of seeing the pattern repeat itself (LGBT rights being held back, unarmed black people getting shot like clockwork, getting involved in more wars, etc) only to do more damage, some people are pretty fucking tired of trying to be nice.
scanners.gif!
Nope. It was because they couldn't figure out how to elect a chief executive. So they came up with a tremendously stupid system that would inevitably explode. And almost immediately did and they had to change it with the 12th amendment. Which made better, but still idiotic.
I'm not sure how you get that from my post tbh
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
(If that's too small, it's a word cloud about what voters have heard about Trump/Clinton)
In this election, that's the problem. I think the 2010/2014 elections are the reason to indict the Democratic establishment more generally.
I'm not gonna lie: shoving their concerns to the periphery and sucking up to Midwestern whites is feeling more appealing right now that risking another loss like this
Ben Carson the Creationist.
Hey now, only until that department is closed!
Be mad, man. Turn anger into action. Volunteer, maybe we can take it back.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Well there's a picture worth a thousand words.
http://time.com/4566547/white-house-obama-staffers-donald-trump/
At a bare minimum, without accounting for future changes in population, you would need:
California
Texas
New York
Florida
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Ohio
Michigan
Georgia
North Carolina
New Jersey
Of these 11 states, the following are signed up:
California
New York
Illinois
New Jersey
In addition, several others are signed on:
Washington
Massachusetts
Maryland
Rhode Island
Hawaii
Vermont
D.C.
Giving a total of 165, with 105 left to go. Arizona, Michigan and Pennsylvania have bills pending, which could (but probably won't) bring the total up to 212. That leaves at least 58 more. What path forward is there from that (optimistic) point? I could see Oregon (7) and Colorado (9). Maybe Virginia (13) and North Carolina (15). Now it's 256, 14 more to go. Texas (38) would obviously get you there, as would Florida (29) or Ohio (18). Otherwise you'll need at least two more states on top of this highly optimistic list.
The simple truth is that you're going to have to get a traditionally red state, or one of the swing states, to sign onto the compact. It's theoretically possible, but it doesn't seem very likely with the way politics are currently. Perhaps if Clinton can win the final popular vote tally by over 2 million votes it might gain some traction, if people are willing to bang the drum on how undemocratic the result is. I fully support the compact, and it's not like unlikely things haven't happened in the recent past, so if we can get this implemented I will be pleased. It just isn't going to be easy.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
On being nicer to the other side: Thinking that there are hardened sides in this is part of the problem in the first place. Every time an "SJW" completely loses their head at a "reasonable" racist online, there are people in the middle who see that exchange and side with the racist. The sides are fungible, and angrily expelling our vitriol in emotional catharsis towards "the other side" only grows and empowers it.
This isn't a fucking moral battle. It's a political one. You don't get points for being right; you only get points for convincing other people you're right. There are consequences for not being nice, just like there are consequences for not being nice at work or not being nice at school, so yeah, sometimes you suck it up because you don't want to lose an election just like how sometimes you suck it up because you don't want to lose your job.
Winning AND being right > losing and being right > winning and being wrong
This is a word map based on media coverage. Please point on the map where you see any words related to policy.
It's entirely the media's fault. Clinton talked about what she would do to help <everyone> constantly, but you wouldn't know it from anyone reporting on her. They are 100% to blame for depressing D voter and handing the election to Donald.
That was apparently just overestimating people. I don't think any of us really thought that the public would go for someone like trump beyond the guys that would vote for a pumpkin if it was in the republican ticket.
Turns out, yeah, people do go for the liar that sells simple solutions that are not in any way connected with reality and who is also a racist asshole and a bully on the side.
Titanic fundraising advantage plus all the polls telling you you're going to cruise to victory explains the extravagant party. She had money to burn and everyone left right and center telling her it was in the bag.
I heard a quote on election night that even a Trump campaign staffer told someone in the media "It'd take a miracle for us to win tonight". Very few people saw this coming and now people are looking at it in emotional hindsight and pointing fingers. No reasonable dissection of the campaign will come out for months.
There are way too many people looking for one thing, that one thing. There's no one thing. You don't lose a game on a single play, never mind a 2-year presidential election campaign.
Again speak for yourself. I entirely expected this, expressly because most people want to be told there are simple solutions no matter how disconnected from reality those solutions are.
And what are we going to do to fix "the media" in the case of it being "entirely the media's fault"? We've got no legislative leverage over them, and they profited handily from a horse race. If that's what gets you coverage, if that's what gets your voters to show up in the places you need them, then we need to pushing the firebrand using revolutionary language.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Make People Obama Again.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
It can be nobody though. Between wikileaks, and comey, and the media, and voter suppression there certainly is a lot of very justifable blame to go around there.
And when you say "its totally the DNC" you do somehow fail to note any specific action that they should have taken that would have mattered. You have said that they should do things that they both did and that they tried to do. And you have said that they should not do things that they did not do. You want them to tap into a group of supporters who rejected their natural allies. They simply cannot do that without your help. They did, of course, try. They were conciliatory, they changed the platform, they did basically everything they possibly could without losing the larger group of people who voted for the winner
Like seriously are you going to pin this on a weak slogan? Over wikileaks, comey, and media incompetence? Seriously? You're going to pin it on weak turnout operations? Which as far as we can tell is the most competent and sophisticated in history? Bad polling when everyone got the polling wrong kind of indicates a legitimate October surprise?
Like I am all for some good old fashioned problem solving. But gotdamn its got to be a real problem that we can actually solve!
The DNC is not a disaster run by irresponsible hacks. Least of all because you don't like the results of the primary... that was rigged for your candidate.
OK but what were the actual ball dropping, interceptions and weak offensive line? Because from where i am sitting we trounced em in every aspect. Except the refs called our interceptions dropped balls. And our touchdowns incomplete passes... despite us sitting in the endzone with the ball in our hands long after the whistle.
What is the thing that we didn't do? That we should have done? That we did but should not have?
"Democrats didn't offer anything for the rust belt" "well actually we did and here is us speaking about those plants" "but they didn't say it in a debate" "well not a general debate no, but a primary debate yes. And we can't talk about domestic policy in a debate if the media does not ask about it in the domestic policy debate"
Seriously.
You don't lose by surprise on game day because the other guy was propped up by the press.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.