Scrutable

secret squirrel wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:59 am

dyqik wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:02 pm

It's also the destruction of the GOP. It's driving right wing conservative moderates away from them, and as soon as Trump disappears, they lose half of his base with him (to non-voting)

I guess it's going to be all Democrats from here on out then. Maximum wait just under five years. The planet is saved. Shall I open the Champagne now or save it for later?

The Dems have been dreaming about this for years but it is not happening. The way the American political system is organized, the Republicans can win the Presidency with about 40% of the vote, properly distributed. What is really happening is America is sliding into a one party autocracy.People are under the illusion that they live in some manner of democracy, but it becomes weaker each year. There is still a prospect for halting this process, but chances are slim.

Herainestold wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 18, 2020 2:27 am

secret squirrel wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:59 am

dyqik wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:02 pm

It's also the destruction of the GOP. It's driving right wing conservative moderates away from them, and as soon as Trump disappears, they lose half of his base with him (to non-voting)

I guess it's going to be all Democrats from here on out then. Maximum wait just under five years. The planet is saved. Shall I open the Champagne now or save it for later?

The Dems have been dreaming about this for years but it is not happening. The way the American political system is organized, the Republicans can win the Presidency with about 40% of the vote, properly distributed. What is really happening is America is sliding into a one party autocracy.People are under the illusion that they live in some manner of democracy, but it becomes weaker each year. There is still a prospect for halting this process, but chances are slim.

Tony Blair won the 2005 election, getting 55% of the available Commons seats based on 35.2% of the popular vote. The previous election (2001) he won 40.7% of the popular vote and won 62.7% of the seats. The American system has it's issues, but it's arguably a much fairer system than the UK's.

Britain hasn't had an election where one party got more than 50% of the vote since 1931 (Baldwin, Conservative), and has only once in the last 100 years had a party win the popular vote and not won the majority of seats (1929, Baldwin got 38.1% of the vote to Ramsay McDonald's 37.1%, but McDonald's Labour won more seats - neither won a majority. In 1951, Attlee won 48.8% to Churchill's 48.0%, but Churchill won a 16 seat majority)

Herainestold wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 18, 2020 2:27 am

secret squirrel wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:59 am

dyqik wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:02 pm

It's also the destruction of the GOP. It's driving right wing conservative moderates away from them, and as soon as Trump disappears, they lose half of his base with him (to non-voting)

I guess it's going to be all Democrats from here on out then. Maximum wait just under five years. The planet is saved. Shall I open the Champagne now or save it for later?

The Dems have been dreaming about this for years but it is not happening. The way the American political system is organized, the Republicans can win the Presidency with about 40% of the vote, properly distributed. What is really happening is America is sliding into a one party autocracy.People are under the illusion that they live in some manner of democracy, but it becomes weaker each year. There is still a prospect for halting this process, but chances are slim.

The democrats are also able to win with less than 50% of the popular vote. Clinton won in 1992 with only 43%. It all depends upon the particular circumstances of an election.

The US is a very long way from being a one party autocracy. To start with separation of powers means that the President can do little without a majority in both houses of Congress.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:08 am

Herainestold wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 18, 2020 2:27 am

secret squirrel wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:59 am

I guess it's going to be all Democrats from here on out then. Maximum wait just under five years. The planet is saved. Shall I open the Champagne now or save it for later?

The Dems have been dreaming about this for years but it is not happening. The way the American political system is organized, the Republicans can win the Presidency with about 40% of the vote, properly distributed. What is really happening is America is sliding into a one party autocracy.People are under the illusion that they live in some manner of democracy, but it becomes weaker each year. There is still a prospect for halting this process, but chances are slim.

The democrats are also able to win with less than 50% of the popular vote. Clinton won in 1992 with only 43%. It all depends upon the particular circumstances of an election.

The US is a very long way from being a one party autocracy. To start with separation of powers means that the President can do little without a majority in both houses of Congress.

Demographic changes in America have made it much harder for the Democrats as there support is overwhelmingly in the NE, the west coast and the larger cities.The way the electoral college is structured the sparser populated rural states have disproportional power. They skew heavily Republican.

In 1992 the independent Ross Perot had a significant proportion on the popular vote.

Trump is not having many problems with the separation of powers. He has implemented much of his agenda despite the opposition of Democrats.

Well, sort of. The Democrats approved Trump's budget for stuff like building the wall when they could have held out and caused a government shutdown, like the republicans did during Obama's presidency. But once again the right opts for winning at all costs while the left opts for appeasement.

Demographics also seem to be working in favour of the Democrats in other ways. The Republican advantage in Texas is slowly being eroded by an increase in the urban and Hispanic population. Trump only won the state by 52.2%. Should Democrat candidates start winning Texas then the Republicans will find it very difficult.

The irony there is that many Hispanics are probably quite conservatively minded, but the republican party is currently so toxic they won't vote for them. It wouldn't take that much of a pivot, though, for the republicans to capitalise on it.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 19, 2020 12:42 pm

The irony there is that many Hispanics are probably quite conservatively minded, but the republican party is currently so toxic they won't vote for them. It wouldn't take that much of a pivot, though, for the republicans to capitalise on it.

A Republican talking point is that the Democrats only like immigration because immigrants always vote Democrat. Which is strange because, as you say, the kinds of immigrants they're worried about are typically from culturally conservative countries. Paradoxically, the kinds of immigrants they don't seem to be concerned about are from relatively left leaning countries like Norway. A real head scratcher that one. Another Republican talking point is that the Democratic party is the racist party, because that was true 100 or so years ago.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:35 am

Well, sort of. The Democrats approved Trump's budget for stuff like building the wall when they could have held out and caused a government shutdown, like the republicans did during Obama's presidency. But once again the right opts for winning at all costs while the left opts for appeasement.

The US budget process is complex and contradictory, difficult to understand at the best of times. The money for the wall is mostly cash that Trump has
siphoned off from other different budget appropriations. He declared a state of emergency at the border to enable himself to take money from the military budget and use it to build the wall.

I was listening to a podcast this morning discussing the most recent debate and I came to a realisation that Trump is probably going to win re-election. His got a really strong base, the Republicans are weirdly great at getting out their vote, they have no problem being underhand and if the Russians or anyone else tries to interfere as long as it's to their benefit they're going to let them. I just don't see how the Democrats are going to be able to beat them, especially when all the candidates are so polarising.

So while I think that Elizabeth Warren would be a fantastic president I'm now hoping that she doesn't win the nomination. If she does then when she loses then it'll be 'confirmation' that a woman can't win the presidency. I have strong reservations about Sanders (he reminds me an awful lot of Corbyn) but a lot of his platform is good and when he loses it'll be read as evidence that America doesn't want progressive policies. So while I think he's hugely problematic and totally uninspiring I think that Biden needs to be the nominee. That way when he inevitably loses it'll be seen as being due to personal failings rather than a referendum on the Democratic platform. And if he does, by some miracle, win then he'll do an uninspiring but satisfactory job and set things up for a better Democrat.

How many polls do I have to post showing Sanders is likely to beat Trump head to head? I think a lot of people are projecting their personal, essentially aesthetic dislike of Sanders onto his chance of winning.

Sanders has a good platform. He has a diverse array of good people backing him. He appeals to people who don't usually vote. He has consistently been on the right side of history. He has a good chance of winning. Get on board.

secret squirrel wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:25 pm

Corbyn has a good platform. He has a diverse array of good people backing him. He appeals to people who don't usually vote. He has consistently been on the right side of history. He has a good chance of winning. Get on board.

FIFLabour

Worked well, that.

secret squirrel wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:25 pm

How many polls do I have to post showing Sanders is likely to beat Trump head to head? I think a lot of people are projecting their personal, essentially aesthetic dislike of Sanders onto his chance of winning.

Sanders has a good platform. He has a diverse array of good people backing him. He appeals to people who don't usually vote. He has consistently been on the right side of history. He has a good chance of winning. Get on board.

All the frontrunners beat Trump in the polls.

Currently.

secret squirrel wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:25 pm

How many polls do I have to post showing Sanders is likely to beat Trump head to head? I think a lot of people are projecting their personal, essentially aesthetic dislike of Sanders onto his chance of winning.

Sanders has a good platform. He has a diverse array of good people backing him. He appeals to people who don't usually vote. He has consistently been on the right side of history. He has a good chance of winning. Get on board.

A recent poll mentioned in the podcast (Pod Save America) said that while Sanders is polling as able to beat Trump that's only if he's able to get out a lot of non-voters as he's turning off a lot of republicans, independents and democrats who other candidates are attracting. It would be great if he wins but I'm struggling to see how anyone is going to beat Trump. He's consistently ok in the polls, the republicans have a very good operation and they're out there drumming up support while the democrats are still fighting over who's going to represent them so the republicans have the upper hand there. And there's nothing they can say about Trump that is going to change his voters minds as everything's already been said. If they cared they wouldn't still be supporting him.

The Democrats won the House in 2018 based on campaigning and getting out the vote. I wouldn't worry too much about it yet.

secret squirrel wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:25 pm

I think a lot of people are projecting their personal, essentially aesthetic dislike of Sanders onto his chance of winning.

I think a lot of Americans are projecting their personal, essentially aesthetic dislike of Sanders onto their chance of voting for him.

This guy has expressed support for the Soviet Union, ffs. What kind of a person praises a murderous totalitarian state's metro system that has been built with the slave labour of political prisoners?

There are attack ads the Republicans will run that would get me voting for Trump.

lpm wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:01 pm

There are attack ads the Republicans will run that would get me voting for Trump.

That's another thing that I've heard mention - Sanders hasn't really had the same level of scrutiny as other candidates. Hillary didn't really see him as that big a challenge so didn't attack him and until the last couple of debates all the current crop of candidates have been very nice to each other so there's been relatively few attacks on Sanders so far. He really needs all that now so that if he is the nominee there's nothing unexpected that comes. Nothing's going to hit Trump where it hurts. The 'grab them by the p.ssy' tape did f.ck all. He's survived impeachment, negative doesn't work on him. That's not going to be the case for the democratic nominee.

lpm wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:01 pm

secret squirrel wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:25 pm

I think a lot of people are projecting their personal, essentially aesthetic dislike of Sanders onto his chance of winning.

I think a lot of Americans are projecting their personal, essentially aesthetic dislike of Sanders onto their chance of voting for him.

This guy has expressed support for the Soviet Union, ffs. What kind of a person praises a murderous totalitarian state's metro system that has been built with the slave labour of political prisoners?

There are attack ads the Republicans will run that would get me voting for Trump.

The Soviet Union was better than what came before and after in Russia though. I mean Stalin was awful, but Western regimes have done similarly awful things, America in particular.

Fishnut wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:07 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:01 pm

There are attack ads the Republicans will run that would get me voting for Trump.

Sanders hasn't really had the same level of scrutiny as other candidates.

secret squirrel wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:12 pm

The Soviet Union was better than what came before and after in Russia though. I mean Stalin was awful, but Western regimes have done similarly awful things, America in particular.

What the absolute f.ck?

lpm wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:52 pm

secret squirrel wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:12 pm

The Soviet Union was better than what came before and after in Russia though. I mean Stalin was awful, but Western regimes have done similarly awful things, America in particular.

What the absolute f.ck?

I'd put the C19th treatment of the Native American population and chattel slavery up there with Uncle Joe's shenanigans. But that was somewhat before the USSR.

bjn wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 2:21 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:52 pm

secret squirrel wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:12 pm

The Soviet Union was better than what came before and after in Russia though. I mean Stalin was awful, but Western regimes have done similarly awful things, America in particular.

What the absolute f.ck?

I'd put the C19th treatment of the Native American population and chattel slavery up there with Uncle Joe's shenanigans. But that was somewhat before the USSR.

Yes, its difficult to refer to a state as being 'western' before the middle of the 20th Century.

Not only do I have contempt for idiots who say nice things about the USSR, I have contempt for idiots who praise the massacre of Native Americans and support chattel slavery.

Only one of the Democrat candidates has done any of these.

This isn't hard, folks.

secret squirrel wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:12 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:01 pm

secret squirrel wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:25 pm

I think a lot of people are projecting their personal, essentially aesthetic dislike of Sanders onto his chance of winning.

I think a lot of Americans are projecting their personal, essentially aesthetic dislike of Sanders onto their chance of voting for him.

This guy has expressed support for the Soviet Union, ffs. What kind of a person praises a murderous totalitarian state's metro system that has been built with the slave labour of political prisoners?

There are attack ads the Republicans will run that would get me voting for Trump.

The Soviet Union was better than what came before and after in Russia though. I mean Stalin was awful, but Western regimes have done similarly awful things, America in particular.

Agreed.But you won't win the presidency by pointing that out.