| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
 Posted: 01/23/17 5:21 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Huh? Supposed problem with " low dem turnout" has "nothing to do with party registration"? |
It is based upon polling data. |
Same polls that said Trump would lose? |
No. Based upon 538's data. Which had Trump's victory as a possibility based upon the uncertainty in the polls. Of course a lot of that uncertainty is based upon voter turnout. If you assume 100% turnout, which this argument is doing, that uncertainty dissappears.
Scientific polls are still some of the best data we can get, and have been extremely accurate. This last election is actuallly an outlier.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/23/17 5:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
So we're supposed to just ignore that Clinton won the popular vote only because of a massive advantage in California, but lost the rest of the country, and ignore that the country has elected Republican governors and legislators in record numbers.
Sorry, but in the face of that electoral reality, relying on polling data to claim that the country actually prefers the Democrats strikes me as the ultimate alternative fact.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/23/17 5:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
So we're supposed to just ignore that Clinton won the popular vote only because of a massive advantage in California, but lost the rest of the country, and ignore that the country has elected Republican governors and legislators in record numbers.
Sorry, but in the face of that electoral reality, relying on polling data to claim that the country actually prefers the Democrats strikes me as the ultimate alternative fact. |
Again, you are talking elections. Those depend on turnout. Why do you thing the Republicans spend so much time and money trying to make it tougher to vote?
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/23/17 6:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
So we're supposed to just ignore that Clinton won the popular vote only because of a massive advantage in California, but lost the rest of the country, and ignore that the country has elected Republican governors and legislators in record numbers.
Sorry, but in the face of that electoral reality, relying on polling data to claim that the country actually prefers the Democrats strikes me as the ultimate alternative fact. |
Again, you are talking elections. Those depend on turnout. Why do you thing the Republicans spend so much time and money trying to make it tougher to vote? |
Grasping at straws.
You really think that's the excuse for GOP control of 33 governors mansions? Voter suppression? Seriously?
You're right. I'm talking elections. Elections are real. That's how we govern ourselves.
I'm really not interested in the theory that if a whole lot of the people who aren't interested enough to vote suddenly cared they would all vote for Democrats.
First, that's not going to happen. Participation has been fairly consistent over time. Second, the assumption that they would all vote Democratic is a pure fantasy.
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/23/17 6:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Gerrymandering and voter suppression is a huge reason. Also, Democrats haven't paid much attention to local government. Meanwhile, Republicans start strategizing there. Like Justin said, Democrats won the popular vote across the board.
Democrats are terrible at forming a narrative and political strategy.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/23/17 7:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
. Also, Democrats haven't paid much attention to local government. Meanwhile, Republicans start strategizing there. Like Justin said, Democrats won the popular vote across the board.
. |
So your excuse now is that Democrats don't care about governorships and legislatures? Where did you come up with that whopper? Do you want to have a serious discussion or not, because that claim outdoes Spicer.
And other than California, the Dems did NOT win the popular vote for president. Put together th other 49 states and DC, and they lost by over a million votes. Don't pretend the whole country voted for Clinton. It didn't. California did, by 4.5 million votes. Clinton won big he popular vote in California. Trump won the rest.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/23/17 8:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
. Also, Democrats haven't paid much attention to local government. Meanwhile, Republicans start strategizing there. Like Justin said, Democrats won the popular vote across the board.
. |
So your excuse now is that Democrats don't care about governorships and legislatures? Where did you come up with that whopper? Do you want to have a serious discussion or not, because that claim outdoes Spicer.
And other than California, the Dems did NOT win the popular vote for president. Put together th other 49 states and DC, and they lost by over a million votes. Don't pretend the whole country voted for Clinton. It didn't. California did, by 4.5 million votes. Clinton won big he popular vote in California. Trump won the rest. |
Lol. That is some twisting of statistics there. Why are we discounting California? They are part of the US.
How about we drop Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana out of the race (about the population of California). Then Clinton would have won by 5 million! We can't just arbitrarily drop states. We are a nation first and seperate states a distant second.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/23/17 9:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
What? I said Democrats aren't the best strategically. They consistently bring a knife to a gun fight. You just have to read the history of what happened in 2010, to get it..but Democrats ignored the warning signs too.
You can twist it how you like...more people voted for Democrats across the board. Which means more people prefer Democratic policies. Democrats need to figure out how to translate it into wins.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/23/17 9:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
. Also, Democrats haven't paid much attention to local government. Meanwhile, Republicans start strategizing there. Like Justin said, Democrats won the popular vote across the board.
. |
So your excuse now is that Democrats don't care about governorships and legislatures? Where did you come up with that whopper? Do you want to have a serious discussion or not, because that claim outdoes Spicer.
And other than California, the Dems did NOT win the popular vote for president. Put together th other 49 states and DC, and they lost by over a million votes. Don't pretend the whole country voted for Clinton. It didn't. California did, by 4.5 million votes. Clinton won big he popular vote in California. Trump won the rest. |
Lol. That is some twisting of statistics there. Why are we discounting California? They are part of the US.
How about we drop Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana out of the race (about the population of California). Then Clinton would have won by 5 million! We can't just arbitrarily drop states. We are a nation first and seperate states a distant second. |
You understand it's not the same thing. There's no other state that created anything close to that distortion. You keep touting this three million vote margin when the margin in California all by its lonesome was 150% that amount. The three million votes doesn't mean a thing. It means Clinton was really popular in California, but lost the entire rest of the country. When you need to start adding together a whole list of states, you know your argument has failed.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/23/17 9:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
What? I said Democrats aren't the best strategically. They consistently bring a knife to a gun fight. You just have to read the history of what happened in 2010, to get it..but Democrats ignored the warning signs too.
You can twist it how you like...more people voted for Democrats across the board. Which means more people prefer Democratic policies. Democrats need to figure out how to translate it into wins. |
That doesn't even make sense.
Maybe Spicer needs an assistant. I think you qualify.
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/23/17 9:27 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
What? I said Democrats aren't the best strategically. They consistently bring a knife to a gun fight. You just have to read the history of what happened in 2010, to get it..but Democrats ignored the warning signs too.
You can twist it how you like...more people voted for Democrats across the board. Which means more people prefer Democratic policies. Democrats need to figure out how to translate it into wins. |
That doesn't even make sense.
Maybe Spicer needs an assistant. I think you qualify. |
Keep projecting.
Is this too high of a level of discussion for you, or do you just not understand the way elections work?
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/23/17 9:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
. Also, Democrats haven't paid much attention to local government. Meanwhile, Republicans start strategizing there. Like Justin said, Democrats won the popular vote across the board.
. |
So your excuse now is that Democrats don't care about governorships and legislatures? Where did you come up with that whopper? Do you want to have a serious discussion or not, because that claim outdoes Spicer.
And other than California, the Dems did NOT win the popular vote for president. Put together th other 49 states and DC, and they lost by over a million votes. Don't pretend the whole country voted for Clinton. It didn't. California did, by 4.5 million votes. Clinton won big he popular vote in California. Trump won the rest. |
Lol. That is some twisting of statistics there. Why are we discounting California? They are part of the US.
How about we drop Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana out of the race (about the population of California). Then Clinton would have won by 5 million! We can't just arbitrarily drop states. We are a nation first and seperate states a distant second. |
You understand it's not the same thing. There's no other state that created anything close to that distortion. You keep touting this three million vote margin when the margin in California all by its lonesome was 150% that amount. The three million votes doesn't mean a thing. It means Clinton was really popular in California, but lost the entire rest of the country. When you need to start adding together a whole list of states, you know your argument has failed. |
I added together 3 adjacent states that have almost the same population as California (in fact they are a little less). If you add those states together you get this same sort of distortion. So why aren't we saying that Trump is super popular in that area and if we ignore those people Clinton commands even more of the country. If it takes a whole list of states to equal the popluation of California so be it. But there is no reason to discount 12% of the popluation of the US just because they live in one localized area.
You seem to be putting more value upon geography than you are on population numbers.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/23/17 9:50 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
I added together 3 adjacent states that have almost the same population as California (in fact they are a little less). If you add those states together you get this same sort of distortion. So why aren't we saying that Trump is super popular in that area and if we ignore those people Clinton commands even more of the country. If it takes a whole list of states to equal the popluation of California so be it. But there is no reason to discount 12% of the popluation of the US just because they live in one localized area.
You seem to be putting more value upon geography than you are on population numbers. |
Apart from everything else, your math is about as accurate as Spicer's. Trump's total margin in your three states together is less than 1,750,000, compared to Clinton's advantage of 4,270,000 in California alone.
But hey, if you add in another eight or ten states, maybe you can get there.
More alternative facts, I guess.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/23/17 10:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
I added together 3 adjacent states that have almost the same population as California (in fact they are a little less). If you add those states together you get this same sort of distortion. So why aren't we saying that Trump is super popular in that area and if we ignore those people Clinton commands even more of the country. If it takes a whole list of states to equal the popluation of California so be it. But there is no reason to discount 12% of the popluation of the US just because they live in one localized area.
You seem to be putting more value upon geography than you are on population numbers. |
Apart from everything else, your math is about as accurate as Spicer's. Trump's total margin in your three states together is less than 1,750,000, compared to Clinton's advantage of 4,270,000 in California alone.
But hey, if you add in another eight or ten states, maybe you can get there.
More alternative facts, I guess. |
Wow, pedantic much? I said her total would be about 5 million. 3 million plus the 2 million from those states.
If you wanted I could have just looked at the states that were the most slanted Republican and added them together until I reached 38 million. Could have gotten even more than the 5 million that way.
You seem obsessed with geography. Why does it matter how California voted? They are American, and they represent a huge portion of the population of our country. Where they live is irrelevant.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/23/17 10:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
I added together 3 adjacent states that have almost the same population as California (in fact they are a little less). If you add those states together you get this same sort of distortion. So why aren't we saying that Trump is super popular in that area and if we ignore those people Clinton commands even more of the country. If it takes a whole list of states to equal the popluation of California so be it. But there is no reason to discount 12% of the popluation of the US just because they live in one localized area.
You seem to be putting more value upon geography than you are on population numbers. |
Apart from everything else, your math is about as accurate as Spicer's. Trump's total margin in your three states together is less than 1,750,000, compared to Clinton's advantage of 4,270,000 in California alone.
But hey, if you add in another eight or ten states, maybe you can get there.
More alternative facts, I guess. |
Wow, pedantic much? I said her total would be about 5 million. 3 million plus the 2 million from those states.
If you wanted I could have just looked at the states that were the most slanted Republican and added them together until I reached 38 million. Could have gotten even more than the 5 million that way.
You seem obsessed with geography. Why does it matter how California voted? They are American, and they represent a huge portion of the population of our country. Where they live is irrelevant. |
Huh? You are the one that claimed that three states gave Trump a margin equal to Clinton's California margin. That was demonstrably false. By a mile. Your notion that another block of states of equal population balanced Cali is a total canard. Just admit it. There is nothing equivalent to the distortion caused by California. Clinton lost the rest of the country. By a lot.
She was a bad, unfit candidate who ran an even worse campaign and lost to a total clown.
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16358
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/23/17 11:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| nm
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63763
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/23/17 11:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| lost to a total clown. |
It was a team of clowns: Trump, Putin, and Comey.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/24/17 10:55 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Well, this discussion has been all over the map! Every time we try to talk about something there's a pivot, and, Art, it mostly seems to be coming from you.
But I guess I can roll with multiple topics at once.
1. State elections are gerrymandered and affected by that as much as national actions. Believe me, I grew up in a blue dot amidst a red stronghold. There was constant redrawing of boundaries to dilute the blue. Of course I lost state reps at the national level, but I also lost local reps that I adored due to the constant redrawing of lines.
2. My discussion of policies that people like had nothing to do with voting. It had to do with poles and research. In this research, people were asked about whether they supported or did not support specific positions or policies. There was no party affiliation stated. It just so happened that a majority of folks supported the liberal policies. Because people don't know what they're voting for. But that's my interpretation, I guess.
3. I truly do not have words to express how aghast I am at how casually you dismiss the effects of sexism in our society. But I guess that's your privilege. I know that you'll probably interpret this misinterpret the statement, but I mean a definition of "privilege" that essentially means "if it doesn't affect me it's not a problem". That's what I hear in basically your entire discussion about Hillary. I'd suggest taking a hard look at that if I thought it would do any good.
4. I don't know what the other population/geography discussion has to do with what we were discussing. I do know that I'm tired of rebuttals that dismiss data and research as "alternative facts", as if that makes it so.
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
Last edited by norwester on 01/24/17 1:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/24/17 11:37 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Shades wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| lost to a total clown. |
It was a team of clowns: Trump, Putin, and Comey. |
Interstate Crosscheck seems to be the least acknowledged cause and is, to me, the most important issue regarding elections, because it will affect every election unless and until it is rooted out, and is a deliberate Republican effort to deny eligible Americans the ability to cast their vote and have it counted.
Despite ALL of the bullshit, Clinton still creamed the PathologicalLiarOfTheUnitedStates by 3,000,000 votes.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16358
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/01/17 3:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| PUmatty wrote: |
| PUmatty wrote: |
This is where the Democratic slaughter in state offices under Obama's leadership becomes a real problem. It's cliche to say, but the Democrats do not have a deep bench. The GOP showed that quantity is not the same a quality, but there are very few legitimate options who are not Senators. And in case anyone has forgotten, Barack Obama notwithstanding, it is quite unusual for Senators to win.
There are virtually no governors to prove from, and not a single Democratic governor with national recognition. Most of the few governors there are are too old to fit the mold in four years. Mark Dayton, Jay Inslee, John Hickenlooper and the like will all be close to 70 in 2020. The younger set are basically complete unknowns. Whoever ends up leading the party should make serious efforts to get the likes of Gina Raimondo, Steve Bullock, and John Bel Edwards into the national spotlight. They might not catch on as candidates, but you have to do something.
Jason Kander isn't an office holder, but he is someone else I would love to see the Democrats figure out how to get into the spotlight. |
I'd add Maggie Hassan as someone with good potential who has governorship experience as well. I am less enamored with Mark Warner, but he is another. |
The absence of Mark Warner from these lists exemplifies how screwed up our process has become. He is an extremely smart, charismatic, electable, former governor, current senator, business executive, who has demonstrated the ability to be elected by and work with a politically divided state. His only problem is that he's sensibly moderate, and not some radical leftist bombthrower, so he's "off the list" for the Democratic party. The "list" being offered here is just the mirror image of the right wing extremists who ran for the GOP nomination this time.
That anyone would consider Cory Booker or Elizabeth Warren as remotely as suitable as Mark Warren to be President is no different than anyone thinking Rick Perry and Ted Cruz are as suitable.
Our system has become so screwed up that evidently only extremists need apply. |
The same Mark Warner just became one of three Democrats to vote to confirm Rex Tillerson, and the only one who is not from a deep red state.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/01/17 7:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| PUmatty wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| PUmatty wrote: |
| PUmatty wrote: |
This is where the Democratic slaughter in state offices under Obama's leadership becomes a real problem. It's cliche to say, but the Democrats do not have a deep bench. The GOP showed that quantity is not the same a quality, but there are very few legitimate options who are not Senators. And in case anyone has forgotten, Barack Obama notwithstanding, it is quite unusual for Senators to win.
There are virtually no governors to prove from, and not a single Democratic governor with national recognition. Most of the few governors there are are too old to fit the mold in four years. Mark Dayton, Jay Inslee, John Hickenlooper and the like will all be close to 70 in 2020. The younger set are basically complete unknowns. Whoever ends up leading the party should make serious efforts to get the likes of Gina Raimondo, Steve Bullock, and John Bel Edwards into the national spotlight. They might not catch on as candidates, but you have to do something.
Jason Kander isn't an office holder, but he is someone else I would love to see the Democrats figure out how to get into the spotlight. |
I'd add Maggie Hassan as someone with good potential who has governorship experience as well. I am less enamored with Mark Warner, but he is another. |
The absence of Mark Warner from these lists exemplifies how screwed up our process has become. He is an extremely smart, charismatic, electable, former governor, current senator, business executive, who has demonstrated the ability to be elected by and work with a politically divided state. His only problem is that he's sensibly moderate, and not some radical leftist bombthrower, so he's "off the list" for the Democratic party. The "list" being offered here is just the mirror image of the right wing extremists who ran for the GOP nomination this time.
That anyone would consider Cory Booker or Elizabeth Warren as remotely as suitable as Mark Warren to be President is no different than anyone thinking Rick Perry and Ted Cruz are as suitable.
Our system has become so screwed up that evidently only extremists need apply. |
The same Mark Warner just became one of three Democrats to vote to confirm Rex Tillerson, and the only one who is not from a deep red state. |
And your point is??????
Tillerson may be the best of Trump's nominees. I don't agree with reflexively voting against all things Trump when the far left does it any more than I agreed with reflexively voting against all things Obama when the far right did/does it. Voting against most nominees is useless, irresponsible, and merely petulant. Presidents get to choose their cabinets. Save it for thoroughly unqualified clowns like DeVoss. This simply manifests further that Warner is reasoned, independant, and sensible enough to be a terrific and electable candidate, which of course means he can't get the Democratic nomination because he's not extreme enough. Instead the Dems will nominate someone like Warren and incredibly hand Trump a second term. Yeah, that's a formula for success. 
Tell me. What did the Senators who voted "no" accomplish other than score some PR points with their left wing base? How did that fulfill their Constitutional responsibility or improve our government?
|
|
|
|
