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

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Yes, in the sense that everything has a consequence (butterfly effect). But I should not be compelled to vote any particular way because the power structure that’s supposed to keep policy and candidates within a certain range (or outside certain spheres of deviancy, to use a journalist’s descriptive) completely fuck up their job.

There are quiet but powerful failsafes in place to placate or defuse populists. Both parties and the corporate and bureaucratic power structures have totally failed in implementing them.

Normal people* want to vote so as to make things better, and/or avoid things getting worse.

*Third party voters are often not normal, preferring their fantasies over what ca actually happen.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

...it’s because all the people who were supposed to keep Trump from happening...

That's you, numb nuts. And me. And everyone else. Just because you didn't predict it would happen doesn't mean you aren't the exact type of person at fault for not voting for the only real option in a very important election. Do all the somersaults and back flips you want to excuse yourself. People who voted third party and who stayed home are to blame for the existence of the shit-fire currently occupying the Oval. Period.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Yes, in the sense that everything has a consequence (butterfly effect). But I should not be compelled to vote any particular way because the power structure that’s supposed to keep policy and candidates within a certain range (or outside certain spheres of deviancy, to use a journalist’s descriptive) completely fuck up their job.

This is absolute nonsense. If you have a choice to vote for broccoli, trash, or feces, you don't get to blame everyone else for having to eat poop when you voted for trash. "But people should know human waste is disgusting! I blame our leaders for not letting everyone know." Yeah. Sure. Maybe. Whatever. You threw your vote away and now you're eating shit.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Every vote has a consequence you idiot. That's the point.

A second point...

No. Your vote is not necessarily supposed to have a consequence. We're a Republic to avoid exactly that result.

One of the hallmarks of populism is affinity for referendums, which is direct democracy. Trump is a thing that happens when the Republic's management devices fail and it veers toward actual pure Democracy (the irony, of course, being he won via the electoral college, a failsafe mechanism).

We have deals in place to avoid having someone try to build a border wall, flip Roe v. Wade, execute drug dealers, threaten to nuke North Korea, etc. Traditionally, we maintained this by using a complex political process to weed out Father Coughlins and William Jennings Bryans. And we used coalitions of bureaucrats, lobbyists, and corporate benefactors to stifle those who sought to "drain the swamp" (Carter was the first to pledge to do so, and fell on his face).

Your vote kind of mattered, but kind of didn't, as the Founders intended. But through a confluence of greed, ignorance, and arrogance, we've let the old failsafes become weak and ineffectual.

I'm a pragmatist. I believe Carlin's riff on the American Dream -- that we have "owners" rather than leaders, and that our society, our economy, our systems, are largely a game, to be surfed as one sees fit. That's been the case throughout history, in regard to almost every mature govt that's existed. That in mind, I expected the forces that keep things in order to do their jobs. I expected Hillary to walk away with it.

It's entirely reasonable to conclude a third party vote won't matter in a race like Hillary v. Trump. I was wrong. But what's interesting isn't what coalition I fell into. What's interesting is what failed... How the "soft shadow state," the "inside handshake" between the power centers, failed to keep a two bit PT Barnum, and his army of voters, under control.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

All of their base is below-average.

If you're a Republican talking to your base, you don't get to them through the Washington Post's national political reporters.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

A second point...

No. Your vote is not necessarily supposed to have a consequence. We're a Republic to avoid exactly that result.

One of the hallmarks of populism is affinity for referendums, which is direct democracy. Trump is a thing that happens when the Republic's management devices fail and it veers toward actual pure Democracy (the irony, of course, being he won via the electoral college, a failsafe mechanism).

We have deals in place to avoid having someone try to build a border wall, flip Roe v. Wade, execute drug dealers, threaten to nuke North Korea, etc. Traditionally, we maintained this by using a complex political process to weed out Father Coughlins and William Jennings Bryans. And we used coalitions of bureaucrats, lobbyists, and corporate benefactors to stifle those who sought to "drain the swamp" (Carter was the first to pledge to do so, and fell on his face).

Your vote kind of mattered, but kind of didn't, as the Founders intended. But through a confluence of greed, ignorance, and arrogance, we've let the old failsafes become weak and ineffectual.

I'm a pragmatist. I believe Carlin's riff on the American Dream -- that we have "owners" rather than leaders, and that our society, our economy, our systems, are largely a game, to be surfed as one sees fit. That's been the case throughout history, in regard to almost every mature govt that's existed. That in mind, I expected the forces that keep things in order to do their jobs. I expected Hillary to walk away with it.

It's entirely reasonable to conclude a third party vote won't matter in a race like Hillary v. Trump. I was wrong. But what's interesting isn't what coalition I fell into. What's interesting is what failed... How the "soft shadow state," the "inside handshake" between the power centers, failed to keep a two bit PT Barnum, and his army of voters, under control.

Blah blah blah. A bunch of idiots either voted for a fucking moron or threw away their vote. That's it.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I was wrong.

This is the thing. You were. And it was so utterly predictable.

The rest is just BS.

[Icky Thump]

Has “Hell” as the subject line you know your day is fooked.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's Pittsburgh.

I'd say the Trump base that is focused on economic issues is constantly turning. They're seeking a magic ticket, and when they don't see it materializing, they pull the other lever. (How else does one vote for Obama, then Trump?)

They believe the President and Congress control the economy. When they don't "get them jobs back," they attribute it primarily to policy decisions.

And the Trump base is too small to lose any sub-group and remain effective at the ballot box.

Trump will always have his base in hopeless places like Missouri, or the bowels of Ohio. Those dead enders are true believers, thick with the Jesus, high on revisionist history of lost white 'Mericana.

But Pennsylvania is not ideological. It's got no real personality, no real ethos. It's sole resources have been fossil fuels and cynical pragmatism. They aren't about improving, just surviving.

Democrats and Republicans in PA have traditionally been in the Party of Me. They're interested solely in power, because in a state with next to zero economic growth, filled with geriatrics, govt money is often the only money. (Because it's Commonwealth, PA is actually dozens of mini states at the county level, run mostly by a mix of incompetents and opportunists.) PA will flip blue in a huge way in the midterms. But then, when the Democrats don't deliver any more than Trump did (as they'll be gridlocked), don't be surprised if PA flips red again in 2020.

These back-and-forths are the death rattle of low information voters, and Pennsylvania is filled with them. I think they'll keep voting against the incumbent party that hasn't given them what they want for few more cycles before the realization of the act's futility permeates their skulls.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I should not be compelled to vote any particular way because the power structure that’s supposed to keep policy and candidates within a certain range (or outside certain spheres of deviancy, to use a journalist’s descriptive) completely fuck up their job.

There are quiet but powerful failsafes in place to placate or defuse populists. Both parties and the corporate and bureaucratic power structures have totally failed in implementing them.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

A second point...

No. Your vote is not necessarily supposed to have a consequence. We're a Republic to avoid exactly that result.

One of the hallmarks of populism is affinity for referendums, which is direct democracy. Trump is a thing that happens when the Republic's management devices fail and it veers toward actual pure Democracy (the irony, of course, being he won via the electoral college, a failsafe mechanism).

We have deals in place to avoid having someone try to build a border wall, flip Roe v. Wade, execute drug dealers, threaten to nuke North Korea, etc. Traditionally, we maintained this by using a complex political process to weed out Father Coughlins and William Jennings Bryans. And we used coalitions of bureaucrats, lobbyists, and corporate benefactors to stifle those who sought to "drain the swamp" (Carter was the first to pledge to do so, and fell on his face).

Your vote kind of mattered, but kind of didn't, as the Founders intended. But through a confluence of greed, ignorance, and arrogance, we've let the old failsafes become weak and ineffectual.

I'm a pragmatist. I believe Carlin's riff on the American Dream -- that we have "owners" rather than leaders, and that our society, our economy, our systems, are largely a game, to be surfed as one sees fit. That's been the case throughout history, in regard to almost every mature govt that's existed. That in mind, I expected the forces that keep things in order to do their jobs. I expected Hillary to walk away with it.

It's entirely reasonable to conclude a third party vote won't matter in a race like Hillary v. Trump. I was wrong. But what's interesting isn't what coalition I fell into. What's interesting is what failed... How the "soft shadow state," the "inside handshake" between the power centers, failed to keep a two bit PT Barnum, and his army of voters, under control.

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

Most of what you do is for expressive value anyway, so you shouldn’t feel guilty about voting, if indeed you vote. The people who think they are being instrumentally rational by not voting are probably deceiving themselves more. They are actually engaged in an even less transparent form of expressive behavior (protest against the voting system) and yet cloaking that behavior under the guise of instrumental rationality. The best arguments against voting are simply if you either don’t like voting or if you don’t know which candidate is better. High-status people hardly ever offer the latter justification, even though the split of opinions among high-status people suggests that not all high-status people can in fact know which candidate is better.

In other words, both voting and not voting are motivated by the thought that you are better than other people. I am glad that we have an entire day devoted to this very important concept.

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

How?

ETA: It’s my fault the parties ran candidates so bad I felt the need to order off the menu? It’s my fault the Democrats ran a candidate so bad she lost to a guy who didn’t even want to win? I should have seen a Trump win coming despite endless polls predicting Hillary? If I’m inadvertently part of his coalition, it’s because all the people who were supposed to keep Trump from happening: (a) failed to do so; (b) allowed a weak but powerful candidate to run; and, (c) got behind a media narrative that Hillary was inevitable, which those experts should have known was more hope than fact.

I was thrust into a coalition I don’t like. I’ll accept that I’m there. But the people who caused it need to own up to it. I should be a allowed to vote a third party candidate without consequence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h97kbv4mbsc

not to pile on, but you only saw polls saying Pa was a dead heat and if she lost that he wins. you also may have seen 538 % chance of winning, but that is not a poll.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Trump ran by ... departing from Republican policy dogma....

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?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h97kbv4mbsc

not to pile on, but you only saw polls saying Pa was a dead heat and if she lost that he wins. you also may have seen 538 % chance of winning, but that is not a poll.

Whatever I was reading, I was sure enough to have mouthed off to a bunch of Trumpkins at the gym that she was going to win by 9 points the day before the election.

I heard all the people saying "Trump has more signs... you don't see any Hillary signs," but that's anecdotal. And as I recall the data, she was picked to win PA by 3-5 points. That's not a dead heat.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Whatever I was reading, I was sure enough to have mouthed off to a bunch of Trumpkins at the gym that she was going to win by 9 points the day before the election.

I heard all the people saying "Trump has more signs... you don't see any Hillary signs," but that's anecdotal. And as I recall the data, she was picked to win PA by 3-5 points. That's not a dead heat.

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?