2016 Election Thread

[TheLeviathan]

 

I generally find broad claims about generations of people to be ridiculous or at least overstated. Same thing goes for this weaponized sensitivity stuff. It is overstated and exaggerated by certain people out there for whatever reason. I have witnessed literally nothing of this sort at this community college in Indiana where I have had over 1,200 students in the past eight years.

 

Broad claim about millenials being a problem...I can grant that.  A broad claim about the trend in liberalism?  That I wouldn't grant.

 

No offense, but you work at a community college.  That isn't the epicenter of this problem.  Community colleges aren't leading to this.  Or this.  Words can't do this justice.  

 

I hold hope that prominent liberals are pushing back and trying to keep liberalism standing for the right things.  Too few conservatives did the same as their ideology went flying off the rails and look where that group sits now.  We need sane, responsible, thoughtful people on both sides to make this thing work well.  We're heading down having neither side offering that up in the near future.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Broad claim about millenials being a problem...I can grant that.  A broad claim about the trend in liberalism?  That I wouldn't grant.

 

No offense, but you work at a community college.  That isn't the epicenter of this problem.  Community colleges aren't leading to this.  Or this.  Words can't do this justice.  

 

I hold hope that prominent liberals are pushing back and trying to keep liberalism standing for the right things.  Too few conservatives did the same as their ideology went flying off the rails and look where that group sits now.  We need sane, responsible, thoughtful people on both sides to make this thing work well.  We're heading down having neither side offering that up in the near future.

Levi is right on this. I run in a very liberal circle of friends and at least once a week, I see a completely nonsensical argument arise on Facebook. Last night, it was one very liberal woman completely dismissing a very liberal male's argument simply because he was male.

 

The sad thing? He agreed with her. 100% agreement. But he began one statement with "I don't know..." and then followed it up with multiple paragraphs about how it's likely this is the case but he can't be 100% sure it's 100% of the case.

 

Her response was "only a man could say 'I don't know' and leave it at that".

 

Seriously. Multiple paragraphs of agreement, one small phrase that didn't sit with her and she dismissed his entire perspective, even though he was agreeing with her. When he reached out to her and asked her to go into detail what he did wrong so he can correct it in the future, she dismissed him again and said she didn't have time to educate him, as that obviously wasn't her job. Outrage is obviously her job but reaching out to allies, not so much. At that point she left the conversation because she was "too angry to continue".

 

And no, I'm not exaggerating this situation even a little bit. I was dumbstruck while reading it.

 

My own wife, who is about as neon blue as you can be in America, a woman who works harder than anyone I know to understand inclusiveness and alternative lifestyles, has been attacked as "CIS" more times than I can count. It's a running joke between us at this point because it's so absurd.

 

I see this happen. All. The. Time.

 

There is a toxic element in the American left where voices are dismissed because they come from a "conventional" human. Other voices are dismissed because they have the audacity to only agree 98% of the time. It's a race to see who can out-progressive everyone else and it often turns hostile if 100% agreement on all things isn't reached 100% of the time. And even if you agree, by god you better not use the wrong phrase, even if it's innocuous to 99% of human beings, because there's somebody out there who will take you to task for being so bloody insensitive to say such a thing (eg. "I don't know...").

 

And these are from people almost entirely in their 30s and 40s, not millenials.

 

Spend 10 minutes on Tumblr, search a few prominent liberal hashtags, and then get back to me whether weaponized sensitivity is a thing or not.

[DaveW]

 

The Dems will not win the House. The Senate, maybe, hopefully ... but they won't retake the House. 

Sorry, meant the senate.

[DaveW]

 

Dave, I don't know where you're getting your numbers from, but if Trump won Ohio and Florida he'd have a great chance to win the election.  You add North Carolina and it's almost a certainty he wins.

 

538 is currently predicting a 305 to 233 election difference.  That's with NC and FL going Dem.  You flip those 44 votes and he wins.  

 

And I have no idea how you think the Dems take the house. 

The numbers are accurate, go ahead and add them up.

 

He needs to not only win Florida+NC+Ohio, but then either needs to pick up Pennslyvania, or FLIP two decent sized states like Colorado and Nevada, again

nothing is impossible, but the road to victory for him is pretty tough, and of course there is the very strong possibility that he loses but Florida and NC anyways.

 

It was a slip re: house vs senate, the Dems will take the senate (which is enough when you take the POTUS as well)

[DaveW]

 

538 currently has both of those going Dems (VA and CO) and flipping those three states would win it for Trump.  FL has 29 votes, NC has 15, and Ohio has 18.  A swing of 52 votes would easily put Trump over 270 based on their current projections.   (Looking at their now cast section, it wouldn't be 52 because Ohio is already for him, but the swing of 44 votes would put it at 274-264 Trump)

 

So it's possible we're looking at different things, but if those three states all swing Trumps way there is absolutely a good chance he wins.

You are viewing it wrong.

He needs to win Florida+Ohio+NC, and then still flip Penn, or a combo of Nevada+Co

 

He won't flip Virginia, but if he did, he would need to flip it with one of Nevada+Co as well.

[DaveW]

 

Levi is right on this. I run in a very liberal circle of friends and at least once a week, I see a completely nonsensical argument arise on Facebook. Last night, it was one very liberal woman completely dismissing a very liberal male's argument simply because he was male.

 

Not trying to be a dick, but I'd suggest you stop being friends with morons. I live in one of the most liberal cities in this country, of course there are people like the women you mentioned, but they really seem few and far between and it's easy to just put the headphones on and ignore them. Those type of people don't contribute anything to society and they don't do anything to help "fix" society. When you take it to such an extreme your message gets completely lost, which is a shame.

 

Those type of idiots (and yes I will call them idiots) are on the fringe of the "liberal" movement, just like the hard core tea partiers (the Curt Schillings of the world) are on the fringe of the "conservative" movement. The good news is for every one of your examples that you mentioned Brock, they are outnumbered by about 5-6 of the Curt Schillings of the world.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Not trying to be a dick, but I'd suggest you stop being friends with morons. I live in one of the most liberal cities in this country, of course there are people like the women you mentioned, but they really seem few and far between and it's easy to just put the headphones on and ignore them. Those type of people don't contribute anything to society and they don't do anything to help "fix" society. When you take it to such an extreme your message gets completely lost, which is a shame.

 

Those type of idiots (and yes I will call them idiots) are on the fringe of the "liberal" movement, just like the hard core tea partiers (the Curt Schillings of the world) are on the fringe of the "conservative" movement. The good news is for every one of your examples that you mentioned Brock, they are outnumbered by about 5-6 of the Curt Schillings of the world.

I run within a circle of people almost exclusively split between two disciplines: technology and the arts. You're underplaying how many of these people exist within the fringe left community, particularly the arts.

 

And I'm not friends with the person who was being so completely ridiculous. If I was, she would have been unfriended immediately because I have neither the time nor patience to deal with that kind of behavior.

 

And I agree these people contribute nothing to society but just as we shouldn't ignore the fringe right and all the damage they advocate, neither should we ignore the fringe left who wreak the same kind of damage through a different kind of intolerance.

 

But to be clear, in no way am I saying the two are equivalent. IMO, the right is both more numerous and damaging.

[nicksaviking]

 

Speaking of Colorado, I wish Clinton had the guts to run under national marijuana legalization/taxation. At this point the polls show well over 50% of Americans are for it, and it would help solve/fix a lot of issues as well:

 

 

They might be saving that card for a second term platform if she's on more solid footing. It could also be tied into repealing "three strikes" kind of laws and felony charges for possession of controlled substances which is also trending in the right direction.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Those type of idiots (and yes I will call them idiots) are on the fringe of the "liberal" movement, just like the hard core tea partiers (the Curt Schillings of the world) are on the fringe of the "conservative" movement. The good news is for every one of your examples that you mentioned Brock, they are outnumbered by about 5-6 of the Curt Schillings of the world.

 

The right used to laugh off the Trump-types as the "fringe" too and look how that went.

 

The problem is that the fringe is often the loudest, most repugnant, and most dogged of your ideology.  And if you let their nonsense go for long enough thinking it'll stay fringe, you get Donald Trump as your nominee and a total cluster-@^%* on your hands.

 

And the number is growing.  We see more and more of the kind of nonsense Brock posted because people are emboldened when they see it working.  And, make no mistake, that kind of stuff IS working to silence others and oppress free speech and the exchange of ideas.

[TheLeviathan]

 

You are viewing it wrong.

He needs to win Florida+Ohio+NC, and then still flip Penn, or a combo of Nevada+Co

 

He won't flip Virginia, but if he did, he would need to flip it with one of Nevada+Co as well.

 

I think the problem is 538 is an average and I was taking it as a computation.   That doesn't appear to be the case when I play around with some other things.  So you're right, my apologies.

 

He would need to flip Virginia or Michigan as well.

[Badsmerf]

There is plenty of work to be done before legalization can happen. Things are going in the right direction, the fda ruling earlier this year hurts, but more states continue to legalize. I don't think Minnesota is far away, especially when farmers realize how much they can make.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I can't fault Clinton for her stance on marijuana, as that's who she is and we should accept that fact.

 

When the center starts to agree marijuana should be legalized, Clinton will move on the topic.

 

It's both a positive and a negative to Clinton's political life. She listens to her constituency and changes when they change but rarely moves in the right direction before that time.

[DaveW]

 

I think the problem is 538 is an average and I was taking it as a computation.   That doesn't appear to be the case when I play around with some other things.  So you're right, my apologies.

 

He would need to flip Virginia or Michigan as well.

Yeah, they use a blended average I believe, they have a good chart like 2/3rds down the page that shows it better (how he would need Colorado+ Nevada)

[DaveW]

 

I can't fault Clinton for her stance on marijuana, as that's who she is and we should accept that fact.

 

When the center starts to agree marijuana should be legalized, Clinton will move on the topic.

 

It's both a positive and a negative to Clinton's political life. She listens to her constituency and changes when they change but rarely moves in the right direction before that time.

The center has already agreed that Marijuana should be legalized! 63% of independents, 54% of the country overall. What the hell is the point of the government if they won't act in the interests of the country?

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/do-people-support-legalizing-marijuana-223928

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The center has already agreed that Marijuana should be legalized! 63% of independents, 54% of the country overall. What the hell is the point of the government if they won't act in the interests of the country?

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/do-people-support-legalizing-marijuana-223928

I understand and agree with you that it should be legalized - a big reason why I joined the Libertarian Party in 1999 was its stance on drugs and gay rights so I was on board with this stuff years ago - but 54% is a pretty slim margin.

 

Clinton will get there in time but, as I said, she's pretty slow to move on this kind of thing. Look how long it took her to move on gay marriage, despite the fact it was a no-brainer and inevitable well before she came around on the subject.

[DaveW]

In fact, trump COULD win Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, Florida and NC and STILL lose.

 

[Squirrel]

 

The right used to laugh off the Trump-types as the "fringe" too and look how that went.

 

The problem is that the fringe is often the loudest, most repugnant, and most dogged of your ideology.  And if you let their nonsense go for long enough thinking it'll stay fringe, you get Donald Trump as your nominee and a total cluster-@^%* on your hands.

 

And the number is growing.  We see more and more of the kind of nonsense Brock posted because people are emboldened when they see it working.  And, make no mistake, that kind of stuff IS working to silence others and oppress free speech and the exchange of ideas.

Where is the boundary for 'fringe?' And if it's growing, can it really be called 'fringe?' I'm not trying to be combative or snarky here, I really want to know ... where does fringe begin? I'm just wondering if ... more and more people no longer identify with the mainstream ideals or either party, or fall in the middle, if those 'outlier' viewpoint have increasing strength and following, are they really that fringe anymore?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Where is the boundary for 'fringe?' And if it's growing, can it really be called 'fringe?' I'm not trying to be combative or snarky here, I really want to know ... where does fringe begin? I'm just wondering if ... more and more people no longer identify with the mainstream ideals or either party, or fall in the middle, if those 'outlier' viewpoint have increasing strength and following, are they really that fringe anymore?

It's a fair point, though maybe "ground swell" is a better term than "fringe".

 

But what has happened is that the average partisan is drifting away from center and I think that's Levi's overall point.

 

In a two party system, that can lead to some pretty disastrous results, mostly through inaction (provided neither party gains too much control).

 

And I think that's what we're seeing right now.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Watch this animation of crossover voting in Congress. It's frightening.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEczkhfLwqM

[TheLeviathan]

 

Where is the boundary for 'fringe?' And if it's growing, can it really be called 'fringe?' I'm not trying to be combative or snarky here, I really want to know ... where does fringe begin? I'm just wondering if ... more and more people no longer identify with the mainstream ideals or either party, or fall in the middle, if those 'outlier' viewpoint have increasing strength and following, are they really that fringe anymore?

 

It's a great point and that's the danger I'm worried about.  What Trump represents has gone fairly mainstream on the right wing side of things, but they were largely laughed off as recently as, what, 8 years ago?  Hate George W. Bush all you want, but he was beloved by hispanics and would look soft compared to what passes now.  McCain and Romney too.

 

My point is that the fringe becomes the core alarmingly fast if left unchecked.  And then people in the center who are well meaning think the only way they can continue to associate with what they thought they were (Republicans this year, hopefully not Democrats in the future) is to abandon good sense and join with that fringe or be humiliated or ostracized.  

 

Trump is a manifestation of the reasonable center of the right wing collapsing and giving way to the fringe.  I don't think the left is as far away from the same as it likes to think.

 

And spaghetti monster help us if they both break.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Man, that debate looks better for Clinton by the day. She goaded Trump into saying some stupid things and now Trump is running with the ball... Unfortunately for him, he's running toward his own end zone.

 

He absolutely refuses to let the Alicia Machado thing drop. The man is a buffoon who seems incapable of listening to anyone around him (who are surely screaming "STOP TALKING ABOUT MACHADO").

 

And Clinton hasn't even geared up for the gift-wrapped "that makes me smart" comment rebuttal, which is inevitably in the works as I type this sentence.

[nicksaviking]

 

Where is the boundary for 'fringe?'

 

At the front door of the Chicago Tribune it appears:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-gary-johnson-president-endorsement-edit-1002-20160930-story.html

 

Explain yourself!

 

The Tribune thinks Clinton has gone as far left as Bernie Sanders?!? I think they might have gotten a contact high from interviewing Johnson.

 

[Seth Stohs]

 

Man, that debate looks better for Clinton by the day. She goaded Trump into saying some stupid things and now Trump is running with the ball... Unfortunately for him, he's running toward his own end zone.

 

He absolutely refuses to let the Alicia Machado thing drop. The man is a buffoon who seems incapable of listening to anyone around him (who are surely screaming "STOP TALKING ABOUT MACHADO").

 

And Clinton hasn't even geared up for the gift-wrapped "that makes me smart" comment rebuttal, which is inevitably in the works as I type this sentence.

 

And it's just showing that he's crazy. He can't get oer something like that, what's going to happen if Putin or Kim Jung-Un, or that Trudeau guy from Canada say a joke about him or something. What would he do?

 

How it's gotten this for with Trump, I have no idea.

 

I don't think it would surprise anyone that I have never voted Democrat (which in Minnesota means pretty much nothing)... I won't vote for Trump. I won't vote for Hillary. And voting 3rd party sounds great, but it's not like they're really qualified either. 

 

Hillary feels like the lesser of two evils, but I can't in my right mind/conscious vote for her. 

 

I truly have no idea what I'm going to do, other than not vote for either of them.

[Brock Beauchamp]

That's fair, Seth. I understand not wanting to cast a vote for Clinton and my only appeal to people who feel that way is "then don't cast a vote for Trump, either, because he is objectively worse in almost every way".

 

It's unfortunate that Gary Johnson continues to swallow his own foot. This country could use a fiscal conservative voice and the Libs aren't going to get a better opportunity to leave a mark than 2016.

[Mike Sixel]

The libertarians have no idea of how to do anything, since their stance is do nothing....which is sad, because they could be a force for freedom...........oh well.

[Squirrel]

 

At the front door of the Chicago Tribune it appears:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-gary-johnson-president-endorsement-edit-1002-20160930-story.html

 

Explain yourself!

 

The Tribune thinks Clinton has gone as far left as Bernie Sanders?!? I think they might have gotten a contact high from interviewing Johnson.

I actually expected this. And it's not surprising.

[Squirrel]

 

And it's just showing that he's crazy. He can't get oer something like that, what's going to happen if Putin or Kim Jung-Un, or that Trudeau guy from Canada say a joke about him or something. What would he do?

 

How it's gotten this for with Trump, I have no idea.

 

I don't think it would surprise anyone that I have never voted Democrat (which in Minnesota means pretty much nothing)... I won't vote for Trump. I won't vote for Hillary. And voting 3rd party sounds great, but it's not like they're really qualified either. 

 

Hillary feels like the lesser of two evils, but I can't in my right mind/conscious vote for her. 

 

I truly have no idea what I'm going to do, other than not vote for either of them.

I've casted my vote for no one before. Casting a vote for no one is still exercising your right to vote, and I think that's important. Although, I've never not voted for someone for president, but other offices ... namely mayor in Chicago. For me those were truly abysmal choices and I was right about Rahm.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The libertarians have no idea of how to do anything, since their stance is do nothing....which is sad, because they could be a force for freedom...........oh well.

 

The libertarian party is certainly a mess, but there are many prominent libertarian thinkers who have a lot of great solutions.  

 

But you're right, as a party, they are utterly failing to live up to their own name. 

 

I still call myself a libertarian, but Johnson is doing that label no favors.  There are also lots of loud extreme libertarians that give the viewpoint a bad name.  (Like, I guess, all parties.  Libertarians seem to have already given into their fringe even before they became a relevant thing)

[DaveW]

Yeah Johnson is a clown, which makes him fit right in with the rest of this 2016 election. (Ditto with "doctor" Stein)

[gunnarthor]

This was the year I was going to be a libertarian but, my god.  I might just vote for the American Delta Party which is actually on our ballot.