Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Tyler Cowen understands why you vote, and it's not pragmatism:



If you were going to be pragmatic, you'd go to a bar and have a scotch instead of voting. You voted for the libertarian to express that you were better and different, not like those Democratic and Republican sheep who herd to the polls to do as they are told. You certainly didn't think it would make a difference.

I love Cowen, but narrowing why a person votes as he's done there does not withstand even minimal scrutiny.

Of course some of my reasoning was expressive. But it wasn't to show how much better I was than anyone else. It was because I figured this would be a vote where so many third party ballots were cast, such behavior would become normalized. I wanted then and still want now to see better alternatives offered. Because, while I really do believe your vote doesn't count for much, I do believe that ideas have power. And the best way to get a novel idea into the political discussion is through third party interventions. With the sclerotic Ds and Rs, all you're ever going to get are minor variations on the same old/same old.

In a system where no reasonable person would assume his vote counted for much, why not vote for at least faint hope of effecting change?

Scratch the surface of any cynic and you'll find a pissed off idealist.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

C'mon. Anyone else remember the Realclearpolitics poll summaries I was bringing here? Anyone else have a different memory of what the polls were saying?

I had you on ignore.

(And RCP leans right.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No one compelled you -- it was your choice, and when you talk about what you care about, it's pretty clear why. You think the culture war is for the rubes, but you were cautiously optimistic that Trump would be good for your pocketbook. Now you're not so sure.

Sure they did. I wanted to vote for someone in the Senate, and did not want to vote for either of the candidates for President. I actually asked if I could abstain from voting for Pres, but pull all the other levers. That was not allowed.

If you offer me three day old salmon, undercooked chicken, or Twinkies, I am compelled to eat the Twinkies. If you tell me I can't have any scotch until I first eat something, you've compelled me all the more.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Trump ran by turning up the cultural resentment, and departing from Republican policy dogma, which has never been that popular with most Republican voters. In office, he has been exactly as promised on cultural issues, but he has done a 180 on most policy and has let the Republican Congress do what they want: Tax cuts for the rich, cutbacks for healthcare, no infrastructure (but it's always infrastructure week). For many Republican voters, this is not what they voted for. For the ones who just liked the cultural sturm und drang, they're still with him. For the ones who thought he would actually build a wall, protect their benefits, do deals and bring back jobs, he has lost them. Instead, he is cutting tax for companies and the rich, and they don't like it.

This is largely a repackaging of what I said, so, Agreed.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'm not sure I see this. Trump is pretty consistent with the Republican positions espoused over the last decade on Fox and by the real party leaders like Rush Limbaugh.

Sure, he's anti-trade, but the Republicans have been moving toward anti-trade positions on lots of issues for a while. But he's anti-tax, pro-gun, anti-choice, anti-health care, willing to incur debt for military spending... where does he differ from the mainstream?

A lot of people were willing to vote for him because he talked about protecting their health care and entitlements. They thought he would cut other people's benefits, but not theirs. Now he's letting Paul Ryan go after entitlements, and that is not what they signed up for. They were OK when he said he would cut the bad, wasteful parts of the ACA, but they really thought he was going to protect them.

In part, I'm riffing on this.

Trump said a lot of different things during the campaign, and he has a gift for bullshitting people and letting them believe what they wanted to believe. My point is that a lot of his bullshit distanced him from the orthodox GOP agenda, and now that he is letting Ryan and McConnell do what they want, that's not playing well, even with Republican voters.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

C'mon. Anyone else remember the Realclearpolitics poll summaries I was bringing here? Anyone else have a different memory of what the polls were saying?

The state of the election in the last 10 days was pretty clear:

(1) RCP, which listed the last three polls only in their metrics, and so in the last week became a daily polling average, showed a very tight race with a lot of movement toward Trump after the Comey Letter;
(2) 438, which did an weighting metric based on historical accuracy of polls, poll size, movement, and past electoral results, was up to about a 30% chance of Trump Victory, and was clearly moving toward Trump;
(3) Other weighted polls were showing a much lower chance of Trump Victory.

The Clinton approach of broadening the states in play was rapidly being reversed, with sudden last minute stops scheduled for Clinton and her major surrogates in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and to a much lesser extent, Wisconsin, now being thought of as a "blue wall". Clinton spent all of election day doing quick stops in Pennsylvania and Michigan.

We. Watched. The. Train. Wreck.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

A lot of people were willing to vote for him because he talked about protecting their health care and entitlements. They thought he would cut other people's benefits, but not theirs. Now he's letting Paul Ryan go after entitlements, and that is not what they signed up for. They were OK when he said he would cut the bad, wasteful parts of the ACA, but they really thought he was going to protect them.

In part, I'm riffing on this.

Trump said a lot of different things during the campaign, and he has a gift for bullshitting people and letting them believe what they wanted to believe. My point is that a lot of his bullshit distanced him from the orthodox GOP agenda, and now that he is letting Ryan and McConnell do what they want, that's not playing well, even with Republican voters.

You don't think other Republicans regularly lie to people about protecting their Social Security while planning to cut their benefits? Really?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You don't think other Republicans regularly lie to people about protecting their Social Security while planning to cut their benefits? Really?

I do. They didn't.

eta: I don't think Trump has any commitment, ideological or otherwise, to cutting benefits, at least not for white people above the age of fifty five. All else equal, I think he'd be happy to buy himself votes by increasing benefits to his base. But all else is not equal. Trump is not interested in policy, and does not care enough to do the work to figure out what he wants and how to make it happen, and he hands those problems off to aides, and to Congress.

eta: A Republican in Congress who loses his race for re-election because he voted to cut entitlements can stay in Washington in a more lucrative job as a lobbyist. But a President who cuts entitlements may not get re-elected. That is why most Republicans in Trump's position would not let the wingers in Congress do (some of) what they have done. Bush waited until the start of his second terms to try to privatize Social Security.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The state of the election in the last 10 days was pretty clear:

(1) RCP, which listed the last three polls only in their metrics, and so in the last week became a daily polling average, showed a very tight race with a lot of movement toward Trump after the Comey Letter;
(2) 438, which did an weighting metric based on historical accuracy of polls, poll size, movement, and past electoral results, was up to about a 30% chance of Trump Victory, and was clearly moving toward Trump;
(3) Other weighted polls were showing a much lower chance of Trump Victory.

The Clinton approach of broadening the states in play was rapidly being reversed, with sudden last minute stops scheduled for Clinton and her major surrogates in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and to a much lesser extent, Wisconsin, now being thought of as a "blue wall". Clinton spent all of election day doing quick stops in Pennsylvania and Michigan.

We. Watched. The. Train. Wreck.

President Obama (and the candidate in 2008) did not set foot in Michigan after September, cuz it was won. You see him and hil in mi and Pa the week before the election? I knew what that meant.

[Hank Chinaski]

PLF's tongue lashing of United appears to have borne fruit! It has stopped killing dogs! http://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/arti...gj7v?ocid=iehp

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

PLF's tongue lashing of United appears to have borne fruit! It has stopped killing dogs! http://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/arti...gj7v?ocid=iehp

They sent that Dog most of the way to Yulin. Don't you believe it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

President Obama (and the candidate in 2008) did not set foot in Michigan after September, cuz it was won. You see him and hil in mi and Pa the week before the election? I knew what that meant.

Well, yes, you're not a moron.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Well, yes, you're not a moron.

Apropos of which: Ouch.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

President Obama (and the candidate in 2008) did not set foot in Michigan after September, cuz it was won. You see him and hil in mi and Pa the week before the election? I knew what that meant.

You and Scott Adams.

I do recall you worrying about a Trump victory. I do not recall you having terribly convincing data to support your fear.