Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

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.

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

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

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

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.

Re: Another One Bites the Dust
 

https://static0.persgroep.net/volksk...664&height=374

TM

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

Translation: I'm sorry. I'm really, really sorry.

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

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.

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

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

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

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

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

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.

Re: Another One Bites the Dust
 

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

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

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

TM

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

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

The rest is just BS.

If a coworkers email for help
 

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

Re: Another One Bites the Dust
 

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.

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

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.

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

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.

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

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.

Re: Another One Bites the Dust
 

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?

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

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.

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

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?

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

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.

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

I had you on ignore.

(And RCP leans right.)

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

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.

Re: Another One Bites the Dust
 

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

Re: Another One Bites the Dust
 

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.

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

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.

Re: Another One Bites the Dust
 

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

Re: Another One Bites the Dust
 

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.

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

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.

Confidential to Flower
 

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

Re: Confidential to Flower
 

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

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

Well, yes, you're not a moron.

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

Apropos of which: Ouch.

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

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

TM

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

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.

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

Quote from today's Financial Times:

The right way to view Larry Kudlow's appointment "is as if Trump were to name William Shatner to command the Navy's Seventh Fleet."

Re: Another One Bites the Dust
 

During the campaign he said he was pro-health care, and wouldn't cut social security (which he hasn't yet but will if given the opportunity).

But yeah, aside from that, anti-trade and anti-immigrant, he's the Fox GOP, not the Washington GOP.

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

That's within the margin of error of most polls, so, yeah that's a dead heat.

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

Whom did you ask, because that is wrong.

Re: There are half-wits, and then there are no-wits
 

I was pretty confident of a Hillary win, but I do recall warning you about the nature of Wisconsin politics.