The General Election

[BigRedBuster]

She was the worst candidate the Dems could have nominated.

 

And it's not even close.

[RedDenver]

We've talked a little about it before but I'm really curious how big a factor "change" is for who wins elections.

 

What I mean is, if one party is in power at least slightly for 8-12 years, even if everything is wonderful do we vote them out because the grass is always greener?

 

Along those lines, how much of a factor is being on the losing side in whether someone votes next time or not? There's a lot of talk now about the Democrats being energized. It seems to be human nature to not realize or be excited about how good you have it. If they had already been energized about not letting Trump win, maybe they would have won.

I think "change" is huge and has been for some time. W ran on a change from Clinton. Obama's entire message was "hope and change". Trump was a vote against the establishment both within the Republican party and in the general. And then look back at the change candidates who didn't win: Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul, Howard Dean, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot

 

I think it's clear that the American people dislike the politicians and the political system and want change. Unfortunately, look at the candidates we've had to choose from.

[knapplc]

Yes. Trump and Obama ran on similar platforms with very different modes of delivery.

[zoogs]

As well as very different platforms.

[BigRedBuster]

[Danny Bateman]

 

Absolutely it's pivotal. But not just for Democrats. That's a silly way to put it. It's pivotal for a representative democracy!

 

Here's an excerpt that really stood out to me:

 

Wisconsin Republican leaders say they dominate the Legislature because they have both a better strategy and vision of governing, not because of illegal gerrymandering.

 

“In a year when people want change, even in a district that favors one party over another, a good candidate with a good message wins,” said Robin Vos, Wisconsin’s Assembly speaker.

But the court said in November that the redistricting clearly aimed to entrench Republican control of the Assembly. The party took 60 of the Assembly’s 99 seats in 2012 despite losing the popular vote, and has since added three more.

As in all gerrymanders, Wisconsin’s mapmakers hobbled their opponents in two ways. One was to pack as many Democrats as possible into a few districts, leaving fewer Democrats for potentially competitive ones. In 2012, 21 of the 39 Assembly districts that Democrats won were so lopsided that Republicans did not even field candidates. In two more, Democrats captured at least 94 percent of the vote.

The other method was to fracture unwinnable Democratic districts, salting their Democrats among Republican-majority districts so that races there became closer yet remained out of Democrats’ reach.

“They just busted my district and put it into four or five others,” said Mark Radcliffe, a 45-year-old Democrat and former state representative, whose district encompassed Alma Center, in rural western Wisconsin. Mr. Radcliffe, who wound up in the district of another Democrat, chose to resign rather than run against a popular member of his own party.

 

The last three paragraphs are a pretty simple but useful description of how gerrymandering actually works, for anyone that doesn't understand the actual process all that well.

 

The red seems completely antithetical to how our democracy should work. How is it that one group loses the popular vote but takes 61% of the state's seats? That's not how any of this is supposed to work. I understand there can be a discrepancy between popular vote and electoral victory, but to this extent? They now have a near 2/3 majority in the state. What the heck happened to one person, one vote?

[knapplc]

The man has never understood the job. He ran solely because his ego said he should. He wants praise and adoration, he doesn't want to be a public servant.

 

 

 

 

 

[zoogs]

He doesn't even believe that. He's trying to badger the press into being more favorable towards him, by playing the victim. It might work. If it doesn't, perhaps he'll try harder.

[Danny Bateman]

From that same interview:

 

TRUMP: It had 9.2 million people. It's the highest they've ever had. On any, on air, (CBS "Face the Nation" host John) Dickerson had 5.2 million people. It's the highest for "Face the Nation" or as I call it, "Deface the Nation." It's the highest for "Deface the Nation" since the World Trade Center. Since the World Trade Center came down. It's a tremendous advantage.

 

When POTUS invokes 9/11 to brag about his ratings.

 

Ooftah.

[Fru]

My God. How can anyone justify voting for this buffoon?

[Moiraine]

It's amusing that he doesn't realize he gets good ratings because he's like a car crash people can't look away from.

[Danny Bateman]

Ahhh, how this reminds me of the general election. Idiot bikers caught on video harassing a random rallygoer doing nothing wrong because A) he was next to a protestor who got escorted out and/or B) he's brown. Good times!

 

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/04/30/trump-rally-goer-roughed-up-after-being-wrongly-ided-as-a-protester/22061975/

[NM11046]

Moraine I think it was you that has been saying for a bit now that he'll figure out a way to stay in office without holding elections ... folks are starting to agree with you - historian folks.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-stage-coup-democracy-professor-timothy-snyder-yale-adolf-hitler-a7712041.html

[Moiraine]

My opinion is he might try it and it's up to the GOP to stop him.

[commando]

i am sure that if he tries his secret service protection will likely be challenged a time or 2