PseudoSABR
-
Posts
6,120 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by PseudoSABR
-
Why should the EC force parties to pay attention to one group and not another. Why should Republicans get extra points for pandering to Western Rural voters, and the Democrats get no points for appealing to urban non-white voters. IT MAKES NO SENSE. One group is no more equipped to root out tyranny than any other group. And even if we accept the rationale that EC is designed to protect from the tyranny of the majority, is that what you are alleging what happened here? If not, that justification does not apply here. There might be some hypothetical reality where the current EC scheme really does give light to hidden voices which overcome the tyranny of the majority, but such hypotheticals give little solace when the outcome here had no such result.
-
Stop questioning people's motives. No one here is advocating changing the EC because they lost this one time. The EC, gerrymandering, voting rights issues, god knows what else have given republicans procedural advantages throughout recent history; this isn't isolated butthurtness. People have every right to question the Electoral College, esp. given the result. The EC did not result in our better selves. The decency of a minority group did not overcome the majority vote's tyranny. Is this a proposal for forced desegregation? If not, the EC makeup shows no signs of including any other minority groups. Maybe all the LGTB should move to South Dakota, I guess?
-
1) I'm not endorsing the popular vote. If we're going to have the EC, it's the extra votes that go to small population states that I have an issue with. Even without the "extra" EC votes from WY/MT/SD/ND, Trump wins the EC. 2) Again, not arguing for the popular vote. The reason Trump won the election was because of rural voters in Michigan and Penn. and Ohio and Florida, not because of rural voters in the Dakotas. The voices actually benefited with the outsized EC count were no more listened to in this election than ones past. 3) Rural Americans are not a special minority, with special rights that are distinct from any other group. This notion that they, specifically, deserve some built-in procedural advantage is the stuff affirmative-action is made of. Many minorities have a claim in fighting against the tyranny of a majority, shall we divvy more EC votes among them? 4) In an election close as this, every vote would have been counted and recounted, in that sense every vote would have mattered. Even had Clinton won, her victory would be without a mandate (as is Trump's). 5) I'd avoid painting those that disagree with you as butthurt. Come on, dude.
-
That the North Dakota republican somehow deserves more weight than the California democrat defies that notion. If your point is that presidential elections ignore certain population groups, that applies equally to rural westerners as it does to those living on coastal cities. Moreover, not all urban populations have the same values, nor do all rural people. You're arguing as if the weighted EC applies to all rural voters throughout the country; it does not. It's very small portion of people (rural or not) who benefit from the weighted EC by living in either North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming or Montana. Most of rural America, in spite of your argument, live else where in the US. The rural Minnesota farmer, rural Arizona rancher, rural Michigan former-factory worker is not benefited by this scheme.
-
Of course they would have had a plan to paint Sanders as a socialist elite. That much is obvious. But would it work? With Trumps overt ties/praise of Russia, and his own Billionaire status, his decries of elitism and even socialism stand a pretty good chance of falling flat against Sanders. I also think you're underestimating how reviled Clinton really was for the supposed corruption, not to mention the lack of enthusiasm from her own base (which low turnout corroborates). So, in your opinion, the Dems need to get more pro-capitalist, more centrist in order to win? I really don't think that's the lesson to derive from the results of this election. The question about whether Sanders could have one isn't so much about hindsight analysis but carving a way forward as liberals and Democrats. I'm done with risk-adverse, calculated, liberal-is-a-dirty-word Democrats, and I hope the rest of the liberals are too.
-
Trump didn't have any kind of platform. You don't know how Bernie's message would play out on the National stage. Your thinking discounted Bernie's chances in the primaries (he did far better than anyone had expected), and your thinking is what led to Clinton's nomination, pardon me if I reject your thinking on this issue. Taxes? That's what you're focusing on after this election. They didn't elect Regan; they elected a bully who doesn't play by the old rules. The issues (esp. the old framing of the big issues) fell to the wayside in this election, and liberals may have missed their chance to push forward their own anti-establishment candidate.
-
Trumps' anti-establishment rant would lose authenticity next to Sanders. Sanders could paint him as the elitist billionaire that he is, that Clinton could not do. In the alternative, for those who think that Sanders would have lost by more, what exactly would you propose for defeating a candidate like Trump? Lurching further to the right? Isn't that exactly what Democrats have been doing over the past several decades?
-
You're seriously misreading the results of this election. It wasn't Trumps tax-plan, or his pro-capitalism stance that got him elected. The election was about anti-establishment, not about endorsing conservative issues or rejecting liberal ones. I'm not sure if Socialism is viable, but Trump demonstrates that Sanders probably would have been more viable than you could have predicted. I really hope that other liberals here don't take what Dave has to take to heart. We should not become a more centered, pro-capitalist party. That's exactly what led to the demise here. Moderate, near-Republican Democrats (like Clinton, etc.) are losers from here on out.
-
Will Clinton win the popular vote and Trump win the EC. That's what the NY Times thingy says. (/hattip BeenHazy)
-
I've got to eat a lot of crow about what I thought I'd see tonight. No matter the called result; there's enough close races, that litigation is likely and we'll be in doubt about the true result for some time, I imagine. In any case, I underestimated the support for Trump by a wide margin. For my part, I watched this election like a bizarre accident happening right and front of me, critiqued from afar, and I didn't do much to stop it.
-
Sigh. Imagine if Bernie was the candidate?
-
NBC calls Ohio for Trump, and then calls Virginia for Clinton. If Trump wins Florida....
-
It's hard arguing with results; his model included more uncertainty, and looks like he was right to have it. That said, I'm not sure he exactly predicated the enthusiasm of rural whites. Some posters did here, though (/hattip you know who you are). We'll see if it holds up throughout the night.
-
Fair enough.
-
First, I think the early vote has really screwed the percentage reported numbers out of Florida, and elsewhere. It's unclear how much is remaining out counties near Miami for instance. Given Trump's lead and the supposed percentage reported in, the networks should have called it. Second, we're seeing the Midwest and South returns surged by rural turnout, with largely urban centers remaining. The map has changed from Obama--I think she makes up for it in urban centers remaining and out West, where rural areas are less dense and the Latino population (esp. of Mexican heritage) is more significant. It seemed close in 2012 early on the night of, and by the next day, Obama won by 4 or 5. I recall refreshing Ohio and Florida counties for hours before knowing for sure...
-
I wouldn't go that far. I think she still wins by Obama 2012 margins, if not more. I'd say disaster for Republicans if they thought they could run-away from Trump after a drubbing by Clinton. The rural, right-wing is motivated to turn out for Trump and his rhetoric; the idea that the Republicans could rally around Kasich or whomever after the election seems far-fetched now. Though, the Republicans look to maintain control of the Senate as a result of the turn-out, but we'll see.
-
Is it over? Did we win?
-
I appreciate the creative thinking but why would the M's make that trade? If Seattle is willing to deal Walker they probably can get a much better established starter than Santana or net a much better prospect than Meija. The M's are far more likely to simply hold on to Walker as he's at the age/experience where he should be hitting his prime. In general I don't think it's wise to trade away our very limited pitching prospects as part of packages to obtain supposedly better pitching prospects. If we need to include prospects in deals, we should deal from positional player depth.
-
For those who can't wait for the exit polls; there's VoteCastr giving live results somehow.
-
Ha, I almost added that Silver sounds like someone responding to those who are cynical of aggregating metrics in baseball. But I thought better of poking that bear, so I thank you for doing so. On the Senate, I think splitting the ticket is something that's more likely to happen in polling than actually in the voter's booth. I don't believe all poll-respondents necessarily reach the Senate questions for variety of reasons; voter's lack of familiarity with their own senate candidates I think will eventually work against the poll-results and weigh more heavily towards the top of the ticket than the polls can indicate.
-
I don't want to push back on this too much. I like that Silver is transparent about what his factors might be, though he's less open about the weight he gives those factors, or exactly how many non-poll factors he's really using. The Princeton Election Consortium had a nice write up about this today. I'll quote a couple key paragraphs, which articulate my concerns:
-
Well looks like HuffPo accused Nate Silver of something just like that; Silver responded over twitter (Politico with the recap). That said, I don't there's a lot of empirical science at work with these polls or the efforts to unskew them. A lot of it is inherently subjective, even using history etc. as a back drop.
-
That's a lot of rain.
-
One group is dominant, privileged, and makes up the majority of decision-making offices. The other group is not. I don't get at all offended, when someone says "White males are blind to their privilege, and defensive when that privilege is invoked by non-white males" even though it doesn't totally square with my experience as a white man. Because I'm not part of minority or marginalized subgroup, generalization don't damage me in the same way, because I still have the same white-male-privilege. What sucks is that we don't even get to talk about how white-males operate as a group without people decrying political correctness. The real world experience of an actual non white male are being dismissed in this thread, because she made a generalization. If you don't see the problem than in that, you're part of that problem. And FTR, saying that someone is tired of white men in context of this election, is not at all saying the same thing as all white men are contemptible. It's simply the case that a great majority of the people saying contemptible things are white men. No one's actually implying that you, or Levi, or me, or any other white guy here is the problem, but white men are the problem. Not all white men, but white men make up the people that are absolutely awful to listen to in this election.
-
I'm sick of white guys complaining about generalization that harm their sub group. Sure it's a generalization, but claiming the higher ground on the politically correct argument, just deflects from the basis of someone's comment, that a lot of white guys are annoyingly resistant to addressing anything about themselves or their sub group. And what's rich is the same people who bitch and moan about too much political correctness are the ones who immediately pull out the politically correct card when the white race or men get invoked. Give me a break. (I mean how many non-white guys are even present as a part of this discussion? That fact significantly narrows the real-world scope of our group think, and probably reinforces some of the blindness to white-male privilege.)
