link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VbJ6weOs_8)
The Green Party has zero influence, no power, no money, uninteresting candidates, and very few supporters. You might as well blame Democratic losses on stamp collectors.
The only explanation I've heard for the Democratic loss in the presidential election is that potential Hillary voters stayed home. Maybe that's who Democrats should blame, the people who when polled, supported Hillary, but didn't show up. When I read the election results for my state, the Green Party votes weren't even listed.
I'm convinced that the Green Party is a stealth arm of the Republican Party, designed to split votes and hand the victories to Republicans. This is because they keep splitting votes and handing victories to Republicans year after year, resulting in policy that runs 180 degrees counter to the Green Party's supposed objectives.
Did the Green Party spoil the election? Only if you believe the votes belong to the major parties and that the only way a third party gets a vote is by stealing it. Not by earning it, but by stealing it. If they earn it you're left with the problem of why the major party didn't earn it, and when they're entitled to the votes they own then they don't have to earn them.
No, it's not the stealth arm of the Republican Party. It's just that the Republican Party is more skilled at using and abusing third parties. It is no secret that in 2000 many Republicans donated to the Green Party, but money alone doesn't make people vote a certain way. One can outspend and still lose, as we have seen often enough. No, the money was used to convince voter that the Green Party earned the vote. But let us look at it another way.
What if someone were to say "You, Democrat voter, would you consider donating to the Constitution Party?" The response would be "no no no they are evil they are greedy they are racist no!" Goodness, the reaction would be worth filming and putting on youtube as a freakout reaction video. It would be on par with the creationist mom at the museum.
Do you think the Republicans donated to the Green Party because they agree with the Green Party? Because they think the Green Party is good and has good ideas? No and neither. They completely disagree with the Green Party and think the Green Party has bad idea. But they donated to them anyway. That combination mystifies Democrats.
I just read four articles about post election polls, why the polls missed the boat, and why Hillary lost. None as much as mentioned the Green Party. Democrats not bothering to vote was not as big an issue that I thought, and basically regarded it as only a modest factor. The most agreement, or at least the reason that stood out in my perception was that many working middle class voters abandoned Hillary in the last few days prior to the election, and voted for Trump, especially in the four key states where Democrats usually win. The analysis of why they switched to Trump wasn't clear to me, and usually the analysis is dicey and pollster opinion, anyway.
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ITVB_enUS637US637&q=pollster+opinion+why+hillary+lost&gs_l=hp..1.41l1148.0.0.0.4805...........0.
Quote from: SGOS on August 19, 2018, 01:51:43 PM
I just read four articles about post election polls, why the polls missed the boat, and why Hillary lost. None as much as mentioned the Green Party. Democrats not bothering to vote was not as big an issue that I thought, and basically regarded it as only a modest factor. The most agreement, or at least the reason that stood out in my perception was that many working middle class voters abandoned Hillary in the last few days prior to the election, and voted for Trump, especially in the four key states where Democrats usually win. The analysis of why they switched to Trump wasn't clear to me, and usually the analysis is dicey and pollster opinion, anyway.
Well, Comey's last minute "announcement" about more Hillary emails didn't help matters any, and no news outlet covered his following "No, never mind, nothing there" with quite the same ferocity they did the previous announcement. I still think he needs to be investigated for meddling in the campaign.
Quote from: trdsf on August 20, 2018, 05:32:59 AM
Well, Comey's last minute "announcement" about more Hillary emails didn't help matters any, and no news outlet covered his following "No, never mind, nothing there" with quite the same ferocity they did the previous announcement. I still think he needs to be investigated for meddling in the campaign.
Yes, Comey meddled, but not putting Hillary before a grand jury. Or was that just Styrzok who plotted that evil? I would be in jail many times over for her psychopathy.
Quote from: trdsf on August 20, 2018, 05:32:59 AM
Well, Comey's last minute "announcement" about more Hillary emails didn't help matters any, and no news outlet covered his following "No, never mind, nothing there" with quite the same ferocity they did the previous announcement. I still think he needs to be investigated for meddling in the campaign.
I can't help but think that hurt her, although I don't think the pollster analysis played that up much. It was more about Trump's message resonating more with the working middle class, while Hillary focused on identity politics and failed to address the needs of this rather large group that had been hard hit by the recession and slow recovery. It was also pointed out that one of Hillary's platform points was to stay the course on Obama's economic policies, which was not very comforting to a group that was still reeling during the less than robust recovery. Why people would put much stock in any politician's message is hard for me to fathom, but to swing the election, it only requires that part of a specific group needs to be affected by rhetoric alone.
At least that's what sticks in my mind. There were too many issues to sort through and keep track of.
After I understood the identity politics issue in the Democratic Party's strategy, I began to see that as a huge mistake. I'm all for improving the situation of the needy and oppressed, but a wiser approach would be to improve the situation of everyone across the board. This is especially true when that broader group is finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. And I believe it's economically simple to do.
Democrats had the perfect vehicle to achieve that during the Obama administration with universal health care, the healthcare people expected before Obama adopted the Republican version, which did offer help to the very needy, but is hard pressed to make a case for how forced compliance and requiring people to buy insurance from private insurers benefits that broader group now living on the edge. Sure there were a few superficial sounding explanations of how it benefitted everyone, but none that most people saw as truly significant, especially when universal was the alternative.
I think identity politics really hurts the Democrats, and I still get the impression that those directing the party aren't seeing that. The inertia of the status quo is preventing the party from taking the bold action that would help the party survive. It focuses on specific groups while ignoring the plight of the middle class, but the American environment is changing much too fast for that inertia to be of much use to most people.
Could that be the appeal of Trump? His brashness can easily be seen as bold. It's not a particularly helpful kind of bold for most Americans, but something that looks similar to bold might inspire a lot of voters at a time when America is failing. Hillary's idea of "staying the course" had little appeal when things were getting worse for so many people.
There's no question that Hillary is not the natural campaigner that Bill was. She never seemed fully comfortable out on the campaign trail; the same thing hurt Gore in 2000. But, there's also no question that where almost every statement of Hillary's was subjected to intense scrutiny, Trump got a near-total pass no matter how ludicrous, vile or hateful his statement.
This should have ended the Orange Disaster Area's campaign that day. It would have that of any other candidate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNXgjnBpxGI
Why didn't it? CBS CEO Les Moonves let the cat out of the bag back in '16: speaking of the then campaign, his said, "it may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS, that’s all I got to say. So what can I say? It’sâ€"you know, the money’s rolling in, and this is fun (https://www.alternet.org/media/cbs-exec-brags-how-trump-great-ratings-hes-terrible-country-afterthought)."
Because CBS' bottom line is more important than the conduct of our government. And NBC's and ABC's and CNN's. Fox was already hopeless -- their coverage of the mocking of the disabled reporter wasn't that it happened, but questioning whether it really was mockery. Yes, and be sure to close the memory hole when you're done using it, 6079 Smith W.
I don't ever want to hear the phrase "liberal media" thrown around as if it were actually a thing again. It's a corporate media, and they're not interested in the news, they're interested in what inflates their profit margins. If they go easy on Democrats this year, it's only because they can't wait for the shitfits Lord Dampnut will throw over having an opposition Congress. In 2020, I expect them to swing around and go softball on Trump again, just because his antics boost ratings. They don't actually care about the damage he might do, just that they can attract viewers to watch them cover it.
Quote from: trdsf on August 20, 2018, 01:03:59 PM
But, there's also no question that where almost every statement of Hillary's was subjected to intense scrutiny, Trump got a near-total pass no matter how ludicrous, vile or hateful his statement.
This should have ended the Orange Disaster Area's campaign that day. It would have that of any other candidate.
Why didn't it? CBS CEO Les Moonves let the cat out of the bag back in '16: speaking of the then campaign, his said, "it may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS, that’s all I got to say. So what can I say? It’sâ€"you know, the money’s rolling in, and this is fun (https://www.alternet.org/media/cbs-exec-brags-how-trump-great-ratings-hes-terrible-country-afterthought)."
Because CBS' bottom line is more important than the conduct of our government.
I watched the video first, and already had the same answer. My version was only slightly different: Trump's antics are fun to watch, albeit in a perverse sort of way. You don't need to analyze it, because there isn't a lot more to add. The antics speak for themselves. People pay attention the same way they do to the Three Stooges. Nobody analyzes the Stooges.
Quote from: SGOS on August 20, 2018, 03:06:26 PM
Nobody analyzes the Stooges.
Oh yeah?
The Three Stooges: An Analysis (http://seanpaulmurphyville.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-three-stooges-analysis.html)
;-P
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 20, 2018, 03:50:39 PM
Oh yeah?
From the introductory remarks of the link:
QuoteIn spite of their long and productive career, The Three Stooges have received practically no serious attention from critics or students of film. Even Leonard Maltin, who wrote about the Stooges in at least two books, kept his writings mainly limited to their history and filmography. The main reason why most critics ignore The Three Stooges is the fact that they specialized in a low form of slapstick humor, which is considered unworthy of serious study.
He could have stopped right there and I would have understood. :-)
Quote from: trdsf on August 20, 2018, 01:03:59 PM
There's no question that Hillary is not the natural campaigner that Bill was. She never seemed fully comfortable out on the campaign trail; the same thing hurt Gore in 2000. But, there's also no question that where almost every statement of Hillary's was subjected to intense scrutiny, Trump got a near-total pass no matter how ludicrous, vile or hateful his statement.
I don't need a campaigner as President. I don't need a charismatic wanna-be dictator as President. I just want sensible management to identify and correct problems in the system and maintain good international relationships. Both Gore and Hillary Clinton would have done that just fine.
So what did we get?
Tongue-tied Bush The Withered Shrub and Beast Rabban Trump (aka The Orange Menace)...
Quote from: Cavebear on August 22, 2018, 05:38:35 AM
I don't need a campaigner as President. I don't need a charismatic wanna-be dictator as President. I just want sensible management to identify and correct problems in the system and maintain good international relationships. Both Gore and Hillary Clinton would have done that just fine.
So what did we get?
Tongue-tied Bush The Withered Shrub and Beast Rabban Trump (aka The Orange Menace)...
With the Clintons you get the Padasha Emperor, with Gore you get the Spacing Guild.
Well, we're still awaiting results from the count of the absentee ballots, and however many provisionals wound up being accepted -- most of those are where the voter forgot their ID, and the voter has something like a week to return to their Board of Elections with proof of identity and the provisional vote becomes a real vote.
I actually have a fair bit of sympathy for our secretary of state, Jon Husted, right now. He's got:
- Faux News bitching about the OH-12 final count "dragging on" â€" no, it's right on schedule, absent a state-mandated recount the final result is not due until the 24th
- The Orange Disaster Area and candidate Balderson declaring victory even though his lead is around 1200 votes and there are up to 8500 absentee and provisional votes to be counted â€" but we already know Republicans can't do math, look at their budgets
- and a few left wing nut jobs â€" we have them on our side of the aisle, we just don't hand them unquestioned control of the party unlike the GOP and their right wing nut jobs â€" claiming it's taking so long because Republican Husted is trying to cook the electoral books
And what Faux and Lord Dampnut and Balderson and the paranoids need to do, really, is sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up and let them do their jobs. I have a little sympathy for the ones worried about electronic voting, but not that much.
The one thing I love about Ohio is that even our extremists aren't very extreme, for the most part. We don't do extreme. We're Ohioans. On the excitement level, we're right up there with putty-colored office cubicle trim. Remember what pushed John Boehner out of the Speakership?
Trying to do his fucking job rather than stamping out on the edge of the field and screaming "NO!" until he got his way. I'm confident that Husted will just do his job â€" no one on the Republican side wants a repeat of what happened to the party at the state level in the wake of Ken Blackwell's deliberate attempts to manipulate the 2004 presidential vote in Ohio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_gubernatorial_election,_2006#Ohio,_Blackwell,_and_the_2004_election): the only statewide office they retained in the next election in '06 was Auditor; Democrats swept to power across the Executive branch.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 22, 2018, 05:38:35 AM
I don't need a campaigner as President. I don't need a charismatic wanna-be dictator as President. I just want sensible management to identify and correct problems in the system and maintain good international relationships. Both Gore and Hillary Clinton would have done that just fine.
That's the thing, though. The people mainly vote for the candidates based on their ability to campaign, not their ability to govern. That's why people who could be good administrators get sidelined by showboats who are much more comfortable at rallies than they are at the Oval Office.
Elected officials have to win elections, first and foremost. Legislation is a secondary concern.
That, and we no longer have an informed electorate - if we ever did. But the dumbing down of America has been going on for so long and has been so successful that we could put a Russian operative in the damned White House! Even if we can get rid of him, enough damage has already been done to America's standing in the world that it will take a long time to recover, if we ever can.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 22, 2018, 01:39:37 PM
That, and we no longer have an informed electorate - if we ever did. But the dumbing down of America has been going on for so long and has been so successful that we could put a Russian operative in the damned White House! Even if we can get rid of him, enough damage has already been done to America's standing in the world that it will take a long time to recover, if we ever can.
Do we have an informed electorate now? Did we ever an informed electorate? These are fascinating questions that don't have easy answers.
In some ways, we actually have a more informed public than we ever did - we have a much greater access to information than our great grandparents and we have a rather aggressive press thrusting their mics at anything that moves. The President makes a factual claim, and there are factcheckers at the ready to challenge them over it.
On the other hand, the press has considerable problems, not the least of which is their great difficulty in adapting to the internet (check out John Oliver's video on Journalism), the rise of "infotainment" over journalism, and tabloid-style "reporting". And of course, all the information in the world doesn't matter when a large chunk of the country ignores it.
Conservatives generally shun facts that paints their guy in a bad light, and Democrats do the same. (Though I note that both the criticisms (https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2014/09/24/20140924post-mustard.jpg) and how these criticisms are presented (https://thedailybanter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/alex_jones_crazy_eye.jpg) tends to be quite a bit different...)
And it's not just that, we literally follow different stories. I'll open my newsfeed and see stuff about presidential scandals, foreign tensions/conflict, global warming, and internet neutrality while more conservative-minded people around me hear about how we're living in the End Times, Obama's in the Muslim Brotherhood and is going to take all our guns any second now, and Marxist professors are at it again.
Imo, it's probably a bit of a wash. Technology has gotten better, but people haven't. Facts are communicated at broadband speeds, but so are lies.
There's so much conflicting information out there that people have a hard time knowing what to believe, and they don't know how to think the way they once did (or at least, may have). They're taught what to think, but not how to think. That may not be the case for everyone, but it's the case for enough of them that they can be easily manipulated into voting against their (and the country's) best interests.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 22, 2018, 01:39:37 PM
That, and we no longer have an informed electorate - if we ever did. But the dumbing down of America has been going on for so long and has been so successful that we could put a Russian operative in the damned White House! Even if we can get rid of him, enough damage has already been done to America's standing in the world that it will take a long time to recover, if we ever can.
I can hardly wait for the Final Solution comes to the US. Get you completely dependent on the Internet, then cut you off without warning! Bwahah.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 22, 2018, 02:43:15 PM
There's so much conflicting information out there that people have a hard time knowing what to believe, and they don't know how to think the way they once did (or at least, may have). They're taught what to think, but not how to think. That may not be the case for everyone, but it's the case for enough of them that they can be easily manipulated into voting against their (and the country's) best interests.
People have always voted for the wealthy interests (including FDR). And that is never in their best interest. Still believe in voting, in elections, in republics?
MSM news coverage:
R White House - we are all going to die!
D White House - we are all going to die!
Y'all are muppets!
Quote from: trdsf on August 22, 2018, 01:13:16 PM
Well, we're still awaiting results from the count of the absentee ballots, and however many provisionals wound up being accepted -- most of those are where the voter forgot their ID, and the voter has something like a week to return to their Board of Elections with proof of identity and the provisional vote becomes a real vote.
I actually have a fair bit of sympathy for our secretary of state, Jon Husted, right now. He's got:
- Faux News bitching about the OH-12 final count "dragging on" â€" no, it's right on schedule, absent a state-mandated recount the final result is not due until the 24th
- The Orange Disaster Area and candidate Balderson declaring victory even though his lead is around 1200 votes and there are up to 8500 absentee and provisional votes to be counted â€" but we already know Republicans can't do math, look at their budgets
- and a few left wing nut jobs â€" we have them on our side of the aisle, we just don't hand them unquestioned control of the party unlike the GOP and their right wing nut jobs â€" claiming it's taking so long because Republican Husted is trying to cook the electoral books
And what Faux and Lord Dampnut and Balderson and the paranoids need to do, really, is sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up and let them do their jobs. I have a little sympathy for the ones worried about electronic voting, but not that much.
The one thing I love about Ohio is that even our extremists aren't very extreme, for the most part. We don't do extreme. We're Ohioans. On the excitement level, we're right up there with putty-colored office cubicle trim. Remember what pushed John Boehner out of the Speakership? Trying to do his fucking job rather than stamping out on the edge of the field and screaming "NO!" until he got his way. I'm confident that Husted will just do his job â€" no one on the Republican side wants a repeat of what happened to the party at the state level in the wake of Ken Blackwell's deliberate attempts to manipulate the 2004 presidential vote in Ohio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_gubernatorial_election,_2006#Ohio,_Blackwell,_and_the_2004_election): the only statewide office they retained in the next election in '06 was Auditor; Democrats swept to power across the Executive branch.
Understood. But enjoy:
Official state color - Putty
Official state bird: Bird
Official state plant: Mowed Grass
Official state tree: Grass
Official state song: C Flat
Official state beer: Non-alcoholic
Official state food: Very Mild Cheddar
No offense, all in good fun.
So, we can answer the question posed in the subject of this thread. The final count, including absentee and approved provisional votes, is in.
Candidate | | Votes | | Percent |
Balderson | | 104,328 | | 50.12% |
O'Connor | | 102,648 | | 49.32% |
Manchik | | 1,165 | | 0.56% |
Did the Green candidate cost O'Connor the election? No, definitely not â€" even if
all the Green voters had voted Democratic, it wouldn't have made any difference. Balderson ultimately won an actual majority, not just a plurality.
The tiny size of which in a district gerrymandered to guarantee a safe R seat fills my heart with joy.
Quote from: trdsf on August 29, 2018, 12:37:21 AM
So, we can answer the question posed in the subject of this thread. The final count, including absentee and approved provisional votes, is in.
Candidate | | Votes | | Percent |
Balderson | | 104,328 | | 50.12% |
O'Connor | | 102,648 | | 49.32% |
Manchik | | 1,165 | | 0.56% |
Did the Green candidate cost O'Connor the election? No, definitely not â€" even if all the Green voters had voted Democratic, it wouldn't have made any difference. Balderson ultimately won an actual majority, not just a plurality.
The tiny size of which in a district gerrymandered to guarantee a safe R seat fills my heart with joy.
There are some Republican Districts. No big surprise there. What worries me is where the 3rd party does affect the elections (when the 3rd party DID capture enough votes to prevent the loser from winning). That's a more subtle effect. And Gerrymandering is wrong no matter who wins.
I would like to see a judge having an inked grid and stamping a State map saying, make your Districts as close to THAT as possible.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 01, 2018, 08:52:14 PM
There are some Republican Districts. No big surprise there. What worries me is where the 3rd party does affect the elections (when the 3rd party DID capture enough votes to prevent the loser from winning). That's a more subtle effect. And Gerrymandering is wrong no matter who wins.
I would like to see a judge having an inked grid and stamping a State map saying, make your Districts as close to THAT as possible.
Fair district boundaries would be nice. Meanwhile there are states where anyone can vote in a party primary. That is pretty weird.