Biblical Basis for War

[motionscribe 0]

gowlerk

Quote

No wonder nobody trusts liberals/democrats to get anything done. . .

What do you mean? If no one trusts them how the hell did Clinton manage to get 3 million votes more than Trump. Your country is nearly evenly divided.

This type of division essentially gives the power to a handful of people, specifically independents and swing voters in states with tight margins. The republicans simply did a better job appealing to those people. Or, if it makes you feel better, maybe you could just blame the libertarians.

The next democrat can get 10 million more votes in the same states that Hillary won, but if they can't find a way to win back the typical blue states that she lost, then it still won't make any difference.

[jakee 1,594]

motionscribe

******I didn't say anything about that guy. I just think that Democrats can learn something from the unity displayed by the republicans.

No reasonable observer could look at the last election and claim that the Republicans were the unified party! If Trump hadn't won it looked like there was a real chance that you'd have seen the first genuine party split since the Southern Democrats defected.

And yet they were able to overcome all that, weren't they?

Do you think the democrats/liberals would've fared as well in a similar situation? Hell, they couldn't even get enough votes from their own base for one of their most qualified candidates ever, a candidate that would've bent over backwards and succumb to their every whim. Instead, they went for the libertarian or some other independent/write-in even if it meant Trump winning. And then we have to listen to those same people crying about him in forums like this. . .

A) You just said the Democrats should learn from Republican unity, now you're saying that the Republicans were able to overcome their disunity. So what, Democrats should find a way to disown their leaders and infight their way to the next election? Or is it that, at the moment, you'll just say anything to support your preconceived idea?

B) What evidence is there that the Democrat base abandoned Hillary? She got more votes than Trump. She got only 100k fewer votes than Obama managed in 2012, and only 3.5M less than Obama's massive all time high in 2008.

So who says the base abandoned Hillary? Why would they say the base abandoned Hillary? How big do you think the base is, and how few independents and swing voters do you think there are?

Quote

The dem's ability to win back those blue states is realistic, but if they can't, then the hope of ever having a democrat president again will merely become an idea of the past.

People were saying that about the Republicans during Trump's camapign. Then just a few months later they were talking about whether we were watching the death of the Democrat party. Overreact much?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[gowlerk 2,274]

Quote

The next democrat can get 10 million more votes in the same states that Hillary won, but if they can't find a way to win back the typical blue states that she lost, then it still won't make any difference.

They didn't lose them by that much. Yes, it was surprising, but it was not a huge shift. Is it a long term thing? I don't know. We will have a better idea this evening. My point is that even in those mid-west states Trumpism, or the tendency toward looking inward and retrenching is far from universal.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[JoeWeber 2,936]

motionscribe

******I didn't say anything about that guy. I just think that Democrats can learn something from the unity displayed by the republicans.

No reasonable observer could look at the last election and claim that the Republicans were the unified party! If Trump hadn't won it looked like there was a real chance that you'd have seen the first genuine party split since the Southern Democrats defected.

And yet they were able to overcome all that, weren't they?

Do you think the democrats/liberals would've fared as well in a similar situation? Hell, they couldn't even get enough votes from their own base for one of their most qualified candidates ever, a candidate that would've bent over backwards and succumb to their every whim. Instead, they went for the libertarian or some other independent/write-in even if it meant Trump winning. And then we have to listen to those same people crying about him in forums like this. . .

jakee

Quote

Politics is a dirty job and the republicans are just better at playing the game. I know, it's sad but true on so many levels. I really wish it wasn't this way, but idealism just isn't going to cut it.

And yet in your first post you said that Democrats could win just by talking about normal working and middle class concerns like jobs and healthcare. Leaving aside the absurdity of the suggestion that they're not doing that already, isn't that an idealistic vision of how to counter the Republican propaganda machine?

As I've already repeated nearly a half dozen times, I'm talking about the blue Midwest and eastern states, specifically Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. You could probably throw Ohio in there as well even though they tend to go 50/50.

The democrats took these states for granted while the republicans double downed on their campaign efforts. Even in Hillary's new book she just blames Comey for the failure rather than admitting that they fucked up by failing to understand their voters and taking for granted the base that put both Obama and her husband in office.

The dem's ability to win back those blue states is realistic, but if they can't, then the hope of ever having a democrat president again will merely become an idea of the past.

I won't say the Democrats didn't do it to themselves on November 8, 2016 any more than I would say it's a certainty they won't fuck it up again today.

Nonetheless, the fact is that Trumps margin of victory in those three states was less than the number of votes given to Jill Stein.

Apologists argue that those votes would never have happened so they don't matter. That, we'll never know. But we can speculate with confidence that few if any would have gone to Trump.

[jakee 1,594]

JoeWeber

I won't say the Democrats didn't do it to themselves on November 8, 2016 any more than I would say it's a certainty they won't fuck it up again today.

Nonetheless, the fact is that Trumps margin of victory in those three states was less than the number of votes given to Jill Stein.

Apologists argue that those votes would never have happened so they don't matter. That, we'll never know. But we can speculate with confidence that few if any would have gone to Trump.

Right, but that still doesn't support the point. Scribe is blaming the Democrats for being unable to hold onto their base. But the swing of voters away from the Dems, even in those battleground states, was fairly small. So unless you define the base as everyone who has ever voted Dem (which would make it a term so broad as to be entirely useless) you don't have any evidence that the Democrat base abandoned the party's candidate. In reality you're probably mostly looking at moderates and independents.

Second, you have to remember that the Republicans ran the longest, most successful character assassination campaign there has ever been. They'd been attacking Clinton ferociously, non-stop, for nearly 3 years before the main election campaign even began. You can't purely ascribe the 3rd party votes detracting from Clinton's total to a failure of the Democrats to engage those moderates, since we know that the Republican's long running smear campaign was very effective at damaging Clinton's personal approval ratings among those moderates.

You could say that Benghazi, emails, and the emergence of a populist, demagogic opponent with no morals, scruples or regard for the truth made the 2016 election a kind of perfect storm. One that makes it impossible to judge the effectiveness or popularity of the Democrats' actual platform at that time.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JoeWeber 2,936]

jakee

***I won't say the Democrats didn't do it to themselves on November 8, 2016 any more than I would say it's a certainty they won't fuck it up again today.

Nonetheless, the fact is that Trumps margin of victory in those three states was less than the number of votes given to Jill Stein.

Apologists argue that those votes would never have happened so they don't matter. That, we'll never know. But we can speculate with confidence that few if any would have gone to Trump.

Right, but that still doesn't support the point. Scribe is blaming the Democrats for being unable to hold onto their base. But the swing of voters away from the Dems, even in those battleground states, was fairly small. So unless you define the base as everyone who has ever voted Dem (which would make it a term so broad as to be entirely useless) you don't have any evidence that the Democrat base abandoned the party's candidate. In reality you're probably mostly looking at moderates and independents.

Second, you have to remember that the Republicans ran the longest, most successful character assassination campaign there has ever been. They'd been attacking Clinton ferociously, non-stop, for nearly 3 years before the main election campaign even began. You can't purely ascribe the 3rd party votes detracting from Clinton's total to a failure of the Democrats to engage those moderates, since we know that the Republican's long running smear campaign was very effective at damaging Clinton's personal approval ratings among those moderates.

You could say that Benghazi, emails, and the emergence of a populist, demagogic opponent with no morals, scruples or regard for the truth made the 2016 election a kind of perfect storm. One that makes it impossible to judge the effectiveness or popularity of the Democrats' actual platform at that time.

Thanks, but I wasn't attempting to support the point. I was merely offering what I, rightly or wrongly, consider to be a significant contributing factor in Trumps victory.

[motionscribe 0]

jakee

A) You just said the Democrats should learn from Republican unity, now you're saying that the Republicans were able to overcome their disunity.

B) What evidence is there that the Democrat base abandoned Hillary? She got more votes than Trump. She got only 100k fewer votes than Obama managed in 2012, and only 3.5M less than Obama's massive all time high in 2008.

In the states I was talking about like Michigan she got almost 300,000 less votes than Obama. In Ohio, she got almost 450,000 less votes than Obama. Pennsylvania wasn't as bad, but still. In Wisconsin, Trump got about the same amount of votes as Romney, but Hillary had about 240,000 less votes than Obama. She said that those democrats either switched, voted 3rd party, or just stayed home.

IMO, the republicans wouldn't have allowed something like that to cost them an election that should've been a blowout. Regardless of how divided the republicans were or how much they may have despised their candidate, they all showed up united on game day to claim victory.

jakee

you don't have any evidence that the Democrat base abandoned the party's candidate. In reality you're probably mostly looking at moderates and independents

Actually, I'm talking more about the Reagan Democrat types, or those similar to likes of Jim Web. Am I in error for considering them part of the democrat base?

Either way, democrats desperately need to find a way to win them back since they've demonstrated how easily they can put a republican in office when they get pissed off, especially now when the country is as divided as it is.

These Democrats voted for Obama, but during his presidency they were probably hit the hardest during the automotive and housing crises. These people lost their jobs, their homes, and then on top of that found themselves paying more for what they perceived as lower quality healthcare - and the republicans capitalized on that, whereas the democrats relatively ignored it.

[jakee 1,594]

motionscribe

***
A) You just said the Democrats should learn from Republican unity, now you're saying that the Republicans were able to overcome their disunity.

B) What evidence is there that the Democrat base abandoned Hillary? She got more votes than Trump. She got only 100k fewer votes than Obama managed in 2012, and only 3.5M less than Obama's massive all time high in 2008.

In the states I was talking about like Michigan she got almost 300,000 less votes than Obama. In Ohio, she got almost 450,000 less votes than Obama. Pennsylvania wasn't as bad, but still. In Wisconsin, Trump got about the same amount of votes as Romney, but Hillary had about 240,000 less votes than Obama. She said that those democrats either switched, voted 3rd party, or just stayed home.

Pennsylvania was a wash. But again, the question is what does 'the base' mean? Is it staunch Democrats, or people that have at some point voted Dem?

Quote

IMO, the republicans wouldn't have allowed something like that to cost them an election that should've been a blowout. Regardless of how divided the republicans were or how much they may have despised their candidate, they all showed up united on game day to claim victory.

When you expand the definition of 'the Republicans' and 'the Democrats' to include every single left or right leaning voter it becomes nonsensical to talk about what those groups will allow. At that scale they're simply not unified, homogenous blocks. It may be that you're correct, and right leaning voters are more likely to ignore every other factor in an election and vote Party, no matter the candidates or issues than left leaning voters... but what can you do about that? And if you could change it, should you?

I worked on a campaign years ago that nationally was going down to the wire and an old timer said to me "We won't get a hung parliament! Too many people remember the chaos of the last one, they won't let it happen." I said that was bollocks, 30M voters can't possibly coordinate with each other to get a result that's good for the country, they'll do whatever they individually think is best. The same applies above, the entire mass of Democrat or Republican voters don't decide to let anything happen, they vote how they think is best. (And yeah, we ended up with a hung parliament.)

Quote

Either way, democrats desperately need to find a way to win them back since they've demonstrated how easily they can put a republican in office when they get pissed off, especially now when the country is as divided as it is.

Well, tomorrow you might find if they've done that. Trying to draw a long term trend from one freakishly wierd election is crazy. Again, in the weeks leading up to the 2016 election people were prophecying the death of the Republican party as we know it.

One election goes badly and suddenly it's the Democrats who are supposedly lost without a clue. Have some patience!

Quote

the republicans capitalized on that, whereas the democrats relatively ignored it.

The Republicans lied through their asses about what was possible to fix it. You might think that's a pragmatic strategy worth emulating, I don't. Nothing good can come of it in the long term.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[motionscribe 0]

jakee

It may be that you're correct, and right leaning voters are more likely to ignore every other factor in an election and vote Party, no matter the candidates or issues than left leaning voters. . .

I just think republicans market themselves more broadly. On one end they have the white nationalists, and waaaaaay on the other end they have the "Reagan Democrats" when they need to score a political hat trick. On top of that, they have democrats similar to the Jim Web types that at worst might swing right, or at best just stay home or vote 3rd party.

Often it seems like the republicans are leading the dems by the nose, dictating what issues they will address.

Republicans: We want to build a wall!
Democrats: Ok, we'll run against that!

Republicans: We don't like gay marriage! We're against Abortion!
Democrats: Ok, let's run against the idea of beating dead horses!

Republicans: Obama care doesn't work!
Democrats: Ok. . .

jakee

the entire mass of Democrat or Republican voters don't decide to let anything happen, they vote how they think is best.

I think you're underestimating the power of major news outlets and their ability to control how people think, along with the power of social media.

jakee

Trying to draw a long term trend from one freakishly wierd election is crazy.

The Rustbelt primarily votes on one issue, the economy. "Have I been happy the past 4-8 years? if yes, vote the party in power. If no, vote the other way. That's it.

Regardless of their feelings of Obama or Trump, things are actually getting much better in those states. The economy is resilient, everything has been restructured and the people have adapted.

Also, if I remember correctly, these states have a tendency to balance out the power. If they vote in a republican president, they typically vote for democrat representatives and vice versa.

At this point, gridlock is probably best until all this divisive nonsense passes.

jakee

The Republicans lied through their asses about what was possible to fix it. You might think that's a pragmatic strategy worth emulating, I don't. Nothing good can come of it in the long term.

Wow, really? The smell of your horse's shit way down here is making me gag - as if the dems don't lie? Like lil' Wayne said, either be good or be good at it. . .

Being worse at lying doesn't make you righteous.

Now that I think about it a bit more, there was no amount of bullshit that Hillary could've spewed to mend the "Heartbreak of America" under the Obama admin, which is why she spent more time trying to bullshit North Carolina into becoming a blue state.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

The Rustbelt primarily votes on one issue, the economy. "Have I been happy the past 4-8 years? if yes, vote the party in power. If no, vote the other way. That's it.

Well that runs counter to everything else you've been saying about party unity and whatever. It's just fundamentally easier to convince people things aren't good than to convince them they are. Everyone wants more, all the time.

Quote

Wow, really? The smell of your horse's shit way down here is making me gag - as if the dems don't lie? Like lil' Wayne said, either be good or be good at it. . .

No one has lied like Trump the campaigner lied. Not just twisting or misrepresenting, but outright lies. To claim everyone else does it too is true bullshit.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,111]

>No one has lied like Trump the campaigner lied.

Yep. But what a lot of right wingers like to do is play both sides of that.

Democrat in power: He LIED! He LIED! How can you be so immoral as to support someone who LIES? Have you no standards?

Republican in power: Well, everyone does it, right?

[motionscribe 0]

jakee

Quote

The Rustbelt primarily votes on one issue, the economy. "Have I been happy the past 4-8 years? if yes, vote the party in power. If no, vote the other way. That's it.

Well that runs counter to everything else you've been saying about party unity and whatever.

Well ya, if you disregard practically everything else that I've actually said.

As I've already mentioned, the republicans appeal to a broad demographic so you get a lot of "single-issue" voters. Republicans in the Rustbelt used the poor economy under Obama to push their candidate. The Reagan Democrats just happened to agree with their Rustbelt counterparts in this particular instance. They tend not to get all emotionally entangled with bleeding-heart liberalism. It's not that they necessarily have a problem with it, it's just that they don't see it as the priority right now.

jakee

It's just fundamentally easier to convince people things aren't good than to convince them they are.

Ya, especially after they lost their jobs, homes and healthcare as they've known it. That shit was real, not some bullshit lie Trump put into their head.

jakee

Quote

Wow, really? The smell of your horse's shit way down here is making me gag - as if the dems don't lie? Like lil' Wayne said, either be good or be good at it. . .

No one has lied like Trump the campaigner lied. Not just twisting or misrepresenting, but outright lies. To claim everyone else does it too is true bullshit.

Again, horseshit. You think that the deliberate, intellectual twisting and misrepresentation of the truth is somehow better than outright lies coming from a man that many claim is senile and doesn't know wtf he's talking about anyway?

Talk about having it both ways. . .

[jakee 1,594]

motionscribe

Well ya, if you disregard practically everything else that I've actually said.

No it isn't. I'll demonstrate that by addressing the next thing you said

Quote

jakee

It's just fundamentally easier to convince people things aren't good than to convince them they are.

Ya, especially after they lost their jobs, homes and healthcare as they've known it. That shit was real, not some bullshit lie Trump put into their head.

There you go. Nothing to do with how good the Dems campaign was. Nothing to do with whether the Dems talked about the issues these people care about. Nothing to do with party unity.

Quote

Again, horseshit. You think that the deliberate, intellectual twisting and misrepresentation of the truth is somehow better than outright lies coming from a man that many claim is senile and doesn't know wtf he's talking about anyway?

Like what? Without an example that question is impossible. I will say that as far as I can see Trump's campaign was quite clearly the most dishonest I've ever seen, by a distance. To say otherwise is nothing but one-eyed partisanship.

Let me ask you this: if the next election involves two people both talking like Trump - lying, making things up, proposing impossible policies, constantly mocking opponents and threatening opposing activists with violence - do you think that would represent a decline in the standards of American politics, or would it be no better or worse than any campaign before it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Phil1111 1,173]

The Memo: Five lessons for 2020 from the 2018 exit polls
https://thehill.com/homenews/the-memo/416027-the-memo-five-lessons-for-2020-from-the-2018-exit-polls

Here Are 9 Lessons From the 2018 Midterm Elections
http://time.com/5447861/9-lessons-2018-midterm-elections/

and not all related but a very good read:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/current/four-lessons-from-the-2018-midterm-election-season