TheLeviathan
-
Posts
21,583 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
49
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 TheLeviathan
-
One of the things I'm curious to see in the coming years is if it was Ryan or the ownership that stifled spending. More and more I've leaned towards it being Ryan.
-
"As compared to Republicans" is sort of where this argument breaks down. Of course neither side is really doing much for them, I've said nothing to contradict that. The optics are what matters because, over time, the optics become platforms. Especially when you give both parties cause to no longer care about that demographic. (In a scenario when the electoral college is gone) The Electoral College forces both parties to care about the entire geographic swath of the country. Removing it all but guarantees the vast majority gets ignored. It gives incentive for the parties to only further ignore those they don't feel can impact the election and concentrate all efforts to encourage voting on urban epicenters. And, worst of all, you will do this. Only on a much greater scale. Read that and tell me you can't see some seriously negative consequences from even further deepening the divide. Image being a woman, LBGTQ individual, or some other minority in these areas. There are a lot of nasty dominos that would fall if you only further marginalize an entire group of people. Many of those things are already happening. Now imagine what happens when you completely neuter their voice.
-
There is no vitriol or hyperbole. The Democrats have spent several decades ignoring blue collar, rural voters. And, with the electoral college, they had real reasons to seek their support. If you remove the electoral college you give them even LESS reason to seek their support. We've already seen how one party would concentrate their efforts away from rural areas. Imagine how much worse that concentration of pandering, power, entitlements, etc. would get if you stripped the electoral college out of the equation? You'd be inviting revolt within a generation. So yes, your vote counts less because you chose to live in a densely populated area. Just like many Republicans vote means less living in California. Or Dems in Texas. And the reason for that is to prevent the political system from ignoring large chunks of the electorate in favor of concentrating on only those they need to win. Is it perfect? Of course not. But it's better than open revolt or tyranny of the majority. The size of our country and the nature of it force us to operate a little differently, otherwise we jeopardize a fair system. You may not like all the ramifications of the Electoral College - but it's fair to the process and ensures no area is left behind. Remove the EC and you are almost guaranteeing a process of disenfranchisement at historic levels.
-
Has this not already been established? While yes, a party could pander to the urban areas and still reach out to meaningless voters out of the kindness of their heart.....but why would they? And we have actual, real evidence that they would just forget about them and ignore them. The party with the supposed moral highground has willfully ignored them for decades and that's WITH the electoral college. It's why the Orange Menace is in power. It's why most of Illinois wants Chicago to be it's own state. Your argument seems to be: "Sure they'll pander to the voters that matter, but out of the kindness of their heart they'll craft platforms to help all" What the hell political party that has ever existed has had that kind of moral compass?
-
I would be perfectly ok with that. As I said, it could use some re-balancing, but eliminating it altogether because your side got the worse end of it this time loses perspective on the protections it provides to minority groups and rural voters. The Illinois model would be a terrible thing, over time, for the country. We simply cannot go down that route without some pretty terrible ramifications. Brock's idea is one I've heard before and support. It offers a compromise that makes more votes count in general. I'd like to see that model run against the past few elections to see the effects, but I'm on board with the principle of it.
-
They idiotically chose to ignore those people because they didn't think there were enough of them to upset their chances of winning. Without the EC they would have been right and would go on continuing to ignore those people. I've already explained the logic. Here's Slate defending the same things. Here is Politico doing the same thing when, 4 years ago, the spilled milk crying of the losers were arguing the same thing you are now. Both left-wing outlets that we decrying right-wing whining after 2012. Now it's the left-wing's turn to whine apparently. So the better question is - what makes you, an urban voter, matter more than a rural voter? Because if you undo the EC, no matter what else you say, it WILL make you matter more. And if you think this uprising of forgotten voters was hard to take, imagine what it would be like when you disenfranchise everyone that isn't living in a major metro area.
-
It's symbolic. It's ignoring those voters. And if you think it's bull I'll remind you what happened less than a week ago when millions of people who used to be Democrats just handed that same party a massive defeat. Why? Because the Dems focused all their attention on urban centers as the key to their victory. Get rid of the EC and both parties will be fighting over the heavy population centers with nothing but scraps for the rural areas. I'm arguing that those that choose to live in large urban centers should not end up being the deciding factor for Presidential elections. If you allow heavily concentrated areas of the country to dominate the entire geographic region you invite disenfranchisement, revolt, and a host of other things. The major population centers already get the majority of the money, attention, and focus. Remove the EC and the rural areas will become a forgotten wasteland. Your own dismissive tone about that pretty much confirms it. Like it or not, the country needs those areas as well and the EC gives them a chance to be heard.
-
Take Illinois as a small scale version of what you'd be suggesting. Illinois is always blue, yet if you look at the way their map votes, there are only a handful of counties that actually vote blue while the rest of the state votes red. So politicians running for national office know this and spend virtually no time in out-state Illinois and almost entirely in the Chicago area. Money from outstate Illinois generally gets funneled through Chicago as well. For all intents and purposes, the geographic majority of Illinois is disenfranchised. Get rid of the EC and you will do the same to the geographic majority of the country. Hell, the massive population areas of the NE and southern California may be enough to override most of the rest of the country if they are want to do so. Politicians will know this and pander to only that crowd. Over time that can cause a host of issues. Essentially, it's tyranny of the majority. And while it's easy for urbanites to scoff at that notion, that protection helps minorities of any kind be it political, geographic, racial, or gender. If, for whatever reason, concentrated majorities started to force themselves on others in a different way (not urban vs. rural, but white vs. black for instance), the EC gives the minority a fighting chance. It's the same reason why every state, regardless of population, has two Senators. Could the EC be rebalanced a bit to make that a little less tilted towards rural areas? Sure, but getting rid of the EC altogether is not a good idea.
-
I disagree Bark, I think this had almost nothing to do with the platform of the Democratic Party. And, depending upon what you mean by "more progressive", you may only deepen the problem. IMO, the party needs to do what the DFL Rep in the Star Trib said today: talk to the blue collar worker and farmer again. Cut out the elitism and be a party of the every day person. Identity politics and all the new wave nonsense of millenials grates against people. You can fight for some of those principles (trans rights, gay marriage, etc.) but it needs to go hand in hand with respect for the blue collar worker too. This was not a vote against the platform of the Dems, it was a vote against their attitude and their super-establishment candidate.
-
The Danny Valencia trade, pretty much frames Plouffe's value
TheLeviathan replied to Thrylos's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
Plouffe's existence on the roster gives the team and the manager far too many viable excuses to play the wrong player (Plouffe) over others. No thanks. He needed to be gone last year, punting it another 3-4 months is just a continuation of a huge mistake. -
I don't disagree it could be rebalanced, but it's still a good idea to have in place. Strict popular vote opens up it's own host of imbalances.
-
You know, you could just move to a rural area if it bothers you. Your argument works both ways. Allowing any handful of areas, regardless of their political leanings, to decide elections leaves huge geographic swaths just as disenfranchised, probably far more so. THE system isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternative.
-
The electoral college has bebefits too. It allows people to overcome the tyranny of the majority. Rural voters would be essentially voiceless in national elections without it. You basically keep urban centers happy and you guarantee a win.
-
Thank you, your long post was an insightful read as well!
-
It's possible the lesson from this cycle was that it was unwinnable for the Dems. I'm not sure what direction liberals should take beyond going as far away from "elitist" and established as possible. Someone your average rural American likes as a person (or doesn't vehemently dislike ) may be the key. It's more about the person than the platform.
-
The irony of Portland liberals rebelling to the election in the name of minorities is almost too rich.
-
That story seems perfectly plausible. Havent most of us been less than impressed with Hillary campaign for months?
-
Has the coverage angle changed yet? THe..."aww...look at those invested young people...awww" shtick was getting a bit old. If this was Trump supporters the outrage would be enormous.
-
Well that article title lead to exactly the kind of nonsense I expected.
-
And miniature American flags for others? (SImpsons) I don't know what would have happened in Trump v Sanders, but I suspect Bernie total lack of minority support in the primaries might have been his undoing nationally as well.
-
I agree, it won't work. WON'T that only make the emotion even stronger? The motives are key to preventing a repeat. Like any protest, the why matters most.
-
Protests aren't designed to create a plan, just to express outrage. Quit looking at it as a plan and see it for what it is. If you keep missing the outcry you miss the point.
-
Two days removed and condescending, elitist liberals still can't figure this out. 30% of his own voters didn't like him. Huge chunks of voters across the rust belt flipped from Obama voters to Trump voters. Millions of left voters the last eight years stayed home. Women and Latinos voted for Trump at rates consistent with past candidates, unshaken by his rhetoric. The data says all this asinine talk about who Trump voters are is a false narrative liberals are wrapping themselves in so they don't have to face the truth of their own failures. So why are perfectly decent Americans of all walks voting for Trump? Because they are sick of an elitist system that condescendingly mocks them and their plight. They are largely aware Trump does nothing for them and they don't care. What has the left ever done but mock them? Who gives a rip about them in either major party? Hillary losing sucks for a lot of us. Welcome to the world of millions of largely mocked and ignored people that have been screaming for help for the last decade. Stop mocking them and thinking this is about race or gender or hate. It's about change. So stop condescending their plight. Understand the desperation or risk this desperation continuing.
-
(MN) Constitutional Amendment - ballot initiative
TheLeviathan replied to Willihammer's topic in The Sports Bar
Good for Minnesota. I hope they can start a trend. Being a public servant shouldn't be a part time job. -
GMinTraining Framework for 2017
TheLeviathan replied to GMinTraining's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
We mortgage a lot to become an 80-85 win team. I just think that's a poor strategy at this time, but I appreciate the effort you made to keep those deals semi-realistic.
