2016 Election Thread

[TheLeviathan]

well, I'd argue most everyone in politics is pretty elitist, from personal experience and remote observation.

Certainly, I meant on a macro scale it is part of how the Dems lost what was once a crucial voting block. Right wing union sabotage being another key part. Probably others too

[Mike Sixel]

It does amaze me that people mad about factory jobs disappearing don't realize it was (partly) the GOP's destruction of unions that is causing much of the wage and benefits losses.....like, it is patently clear, without even having to think hard about it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It does amaze me that people mad about factory jobs disappearing don't realize it was (partly) the GOP's destruction of unions that is causing much of the wage and benefits losses.....like, it is patently clear, without even having to think hard about it.

It's simultaneously breathtaking and depressing.

 

Sure, liberal progressives have caused their own issues over the years but the stagnation of much of the middle class is pretty squarely on the shoulders of the GOP and their post-Carter policies.

[Mike Sixel]

 

It's simultaneously breathtaking and depressing.

 

Sure, liberal progressives have caused their own issues over the years but the stagnation of much of the middle class is pretty squarely on the shoulders of the GOP and their post-Carter policies.

 

And having no plan for the globalization of the world to drive down our wages.....even though everyone that studied it at all knew it was coming.....

[twinsnorth49]

 

It does amaze me that people mad about factory jobs disappearing don't realize it was (partly) the GOP's destruction of unions that is causing much of the wage and benefits losses.....like, it is patently clear, without even having to think hard about it.

This amazes me as well and is partly why I'm still so dumbfounded by what these people thought they were accomplishing through Trump. He's not bringing their way of life back, he represents part of what took it away. He tapped into their sense of entitlement though, and shifted the focus of who is to blame for it being eroded to a much simpler one, although a much more devisive one unfortunately. 

 

The change they voted for, isn't the change they are going to get.

[TheLeviathan]

I think that oft-quoted saying these last few days applies: His supporters took him seriously not literally, so they may have little or no expectations of him.

 

I wouldn't rule out he does change a lot of things, they just may not be positive. (Though some things might be, on some social issues for instance)

[Mike Sixel]

 

I think that oft-quoted saying these last few days applies: His supporters took him seriously not literally, so they may have little or no expectations of him.

I wouldn't rule out he does change a lot of things, they just may not be positive. (Though some things might be, on some social issues for instance)

 

If only he can control the governors, state legislatures, courts, and congress.....all while appointing right wing judges who probably don't agree with him on social issues...

[TheLeviathan]

If only he can control the governors, state legislatures, courts, and congress.....all while appointing right wing judges who probably don't agree with him on social issues...

I agree, at the same time we have a Republican president-elect openly saying same sex marriage is here to stay.

 

I wouldn't have bet on that a year ago. It may mean nothing, but it's interesting.

[stringer bell]

Regarding the EC amplifying Obama's elections: The EC amplifies everyone's margin. Reagan didn't win 90-10, nor did Nixon or LBJ. The problem is that in two of the last five elections, the popular vote winner has lost and in Clinton's case, decisively.

 

I think that if the result were reversed, there would be twice as much tumult, but that is beside the point. The EC is flawed because today with so much polling, candidates ignore most of the country to concentrate on a precious few states. The next time the EC elects a candidate who lost the popular vote, it might be a Republican. Then maybe some action might be taken.

[TheLeviathan]

Regarding the EC amplifying Obama's elections: The EC amplifies everyone's margin. Reagan didn't win 90-10, nor did Nixon or LBJ. The problem is that in two of the last five elections, the popular vote winner has lost and in Clinton's case, decisively. Bb

I think that if the result were reversed, there would be twice as much tumult, but that is beside the point. The EC is flawed because today with so much polling, candidates ignore most of the country to concentrate on a precious few states. The next time the EC elects a candidate who lost the popular vote, it might be a Republican. Then maybe some action might be taken.

Those are all good reasons to look at tweaking it. Certainly changes in how information travels has changed remarkably.

 

I just doubt there will ever be enough consensus to do that. I put it in the term limits pile, all persuasions of the electorate are in favor of it from time to time, just never at the same time.(Not that we shouldn't, some tweaks to better value every vote would certainly be welcome IMO. Just keep the baby when you toss out the bath water)

[biggentleben]

 

There are genuine problems of elitism on the left. That should be a takeaway as well.

But my ballots have gone from purple to pretty much all blue over the last ten years. The GOP's tact on education and science being chief (along with abandonment of fiscal conservatism) reasons for my drift. I can't in good conscience vote for most of the people they put on my ballot.

 

Completely agree on the politics end of thing. I remember a day when it was actually tough to decide and interesting to review my ballot before submitting to count which direction I voted each election. It's not hard to figure out anymore...

[biggentleben]

And it begins...

 

Patricia ZengerleVerified account
‏@ReutersZengerle
Just called a Republican congressional office I deal with often and was told the press relations staff is no longer speaking to reporters.

 

User Actions  
Follow

Burgess EverettVerified account
‏@burgessev
.@SenatorBurr is walking around with photos of reporters he won't talk to. I'm on it.

[Craig Arko]

 

 ...and was told the press relations staff is no longer speaking to reporters.

 

Then they don't really need to be employed anymore, do they?

[biggentleben]

 

Then they don't really need to be employed anymore, do they?

 

My brother's response on Twitter was the picture from Office Space with the "What, exactly, would you say you do here?" line.

[LaBombo]

 

My brother's response on Twitter was the picture from Office Space with the "What, exactly, would you say you do here?" line.

Just when I was making a little preemptive progress toward my impending New Year's resolution to go with pop culture references less often...

 

 

[Squirrel]

 

Just when I was making a little preemptive progress toward my impending New Year's resolution to go with pop culture references less often...

 

What is that?

[Mike Sixel]

 

What is that?

 

seriously? Disappointed....

[Brock Beauchamp]

I agree, at the same time we have a Republican president-elect openly saying same sex marriage is here to stay.

 

I wouldn't have bet on that a year ago. It may mean nothing, but it's interesting.

Same sex marriage is pointless. It CANNOT be overturned. I don't give a rat's ass what a president says about it.

[Mr. Brooks]

Same sex marriage is pointless. It CANNOT be overturned. I don't give a rat's ass what a president says about it.

Of course it can.

I may be misremembering, but haven't the important challenges to it been narrow 5-4 decisions?

 

Also, I think many of the associated protections have been via executive order, which the new President can cancel at any time.

[twinsnorth49]

What would compel the Supreme Court to revisit it though? Wouldn't there have to be some kind of conflict that would cause the court to revisit it? It would have to be pretty significant to make it through the lower courts, no?

[Mr. Brooks]

What would compel the Supreme Court to revisit it though? Wouldn't there have to be some kind of conflict that would cause the court to revisit it? It would have to be pretty significant to make it through the lower courts, no?

The court has revisited many issues over the years.

I won't even try to come up with some specific future example, but I think if the right gets a favorable court balance, they would find a way to get a case heard.

[Craig Arko]

I believe there would need to be a suit filed, the Supreme Court would then need to agree to hear it.

 

I also believe that a negative finding would send the issue (same sex marriage, abortion) back to the states to legislate. This could of course result in 50 different rulings. 'United' States, indeed.

[PseudoSABR]

Rarely (if ever) will the Court overturn cases, because of mere political change.  Stare decisis is something the Court takes very seriously.  What would need to happen is a state would have to pass a new law banning gay marriage, and then someone would sue to declare that law unconstitutional, and then it would go through the appeal process.  This would all take years likely.  Once the issue finally makes it to the Court, the Court would have to be pretty creative to overturn its very recent rationale, and would need a sound legal argument for such a change.  

 

What is more likely is that the Court would be able to chip away at the right.  Like conservative Courts have done to abortion since Roe's passage, with their decisions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Gonzales v. Cahart (though this trend stopped this year with Women's Whole Health v. Hellerstedt).

[TheLeviathan]

 

Same sex marriage is pointless. It CANNOT be overturned. I don't give a rat's ass what a president says about it.

 

It's not as safe as you think.  But still, the point was that the Republican President-elect is pretty much ok with it.  That would have been unthinkable in the very recent past.  

 

Of course, he also went straight Mike Pence about abortion so it's not all good.

[Bark's Lounge]

I want to say something positive. With the words, ideas, debates, etc, etc., I have seen on this thread, and mind you all, we are all very different as we all know.

 

I do believe that the great, great collective of us could come to an agreement on a government where we could all be okay with. It would be better than anything we have had before.

 

I just wanted to throw a shout out to everyone as this has been a very stressful and depleting election.

 

Reading the posts of people that have there head's screwed on straight, in a very concerning time, does indeed, let a little sunshine in.

 

The clouds have been thick lately, at least in my world and I would bet a few of you, as well.

[LaBombo]

 

What is that?

Chuck Heston getting his "DAMN YOU!!!" on. Probably more recognizable in the wide reveal shot that follows...

 

 

No? Anagram clue:  "Athlete Popes fan!" (film at 11). Ok, backward... 'sepA eht fo tenalP'. And it's not 'Fleas patent hope'.

 

Ok, that's my quota of .gifs and pop culture for the week.

[Craig Arko]

Chuck Heston getting his "DAMN YOU!!!" on. Probably more recognizable in the wide reveal shot that follows...

 

 

No? Anagram clue:  "Athlete Popes fan!" (film at 11). Ok, backward... 'sepA eht fo tenalP'.

 

Ok, that's my quota of .gifs and pop culture for the week.

 

Actually, it is.

[Squirrel]

seriously? Disappointed....

  

Chuck Heston getting his "DAMN YOU!!!" on. Probably more recognizable in the wide reveal shot that follows...

 

 

No? Anagram clue:  "Athlete Popes fan!" (film at 11). Ok, backward... 'sepA eht fo tenalP'. And it's not 'Fleas patent hope'.

 

Ok, that's my quota of .gifs and pop culture for the week.

Lol

[Badsmerf]

You're all posting too fast for me to read and comment these days. Only so much time to mess around.

 

The electoral college conversation is a good one. It's obvious something has to change. I'm really not ok with rural states votes worth more than urban state votes. Levi you're justification just really doesn't sit well with me. The dangers of the majority can be very real. That is why we have 3 branches of government and Congress. In California's case, the only place the population has an advantage is the house, and that is split into districts anyway so rural voices are still heard. So the people in LA are really getting screwed. Why even vote?

 

I know you've stated your preference for a hybrid model, but how would that work? Maybe I'll do some analysis tomorrow evening.

[Brock Beauchamp]

It's not as safe as you think.

It would require a Constitutional amendment to overturn. That requires a 2/3 vote in both chambers of Congress and 3/4 of states to ratify.

 

I'm not worried about it.

 

Justices, conservative or liberal, take their jobs very seriously. They're not wild west gun-slingers, meting out random justice as they go along. Precedence counts and it counts for a lot in the eyes of a judge. They're not rule-makers, they're rule-interpreters. And they give each other the respect that if you don't overturn all my rulings willy-nilly, I won't do the same to you.

 

Look at Iowa. The state justices ruled that gay marriage was legal. The public was so outraged that they voted out the entire court in the next election and replaced them with conservative justices.

 

And what did those justices do with the gay marriage ruling? Not a damned thing.