• With swing states all but secured, Clinton campaign moves into GOP strongholds
    53 replies, posted
[url]https://apnews.com/0f9a435727884409951307c1fd443085[/url] [quote]Hillary Clinton is expanding her campaign into states Democrats haven't won in decades, her campaign said Monday, a sign of confidence in her presidential prospects and her mounting efforts to win control of the Senate. First lady Michelle Obama, one of Clinton's most effective surrogates, is making Clinton's case in Phoenix on Thursday, while the campaign puts an additional $2 million in television ads, direct mail and digital spots to help Arizona Democrats running in competitive races for the House and Senate. Clinton's team is also putting an additional $1 million into efforts in Missouri and Indiana, and expanding already existing operations by $6 million in seven battleground states, according to campaign manager Robby Mook.[/quote]
Good. Hopefully the Republican party loses so badly they never try to field another idiot like Trump again and are discredited for good.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51217217]Good. Hopefully the Republican party loses so badly they never try to field another idiot like Trump again and are discredited for good.[/QUOTE] I'm not too sure about that. I feel like someone even crazier and even overtly racist will step up next election. Someone like Arizona's Sheriff that racially profiles Mexicans or Maine's racist governor.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51217217]Good. Hopefully the Republican party loses so badly they never try to field another idiot like Trump again[/QUOTE] Yes. [QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51217217]and are discredited for good.[/QUOTE] No. I won't want a one-party system. And the parties that will eventually replace the GOP are even further right.
[QUOTE=Dr.C;51217255]I'm not too sure about that. I feel like someone even crazier and even overtly racist will step up next election. Someone like Arizona's Sheriff that racially profiles Mexicans or Maine's racist governor.[/QUOTE] Exclusively pandering to whites is going to stop being an effective tactic, eventually. That said, if Trump wasn't an absolute dumpster fire for women and actually attracted college-educated whites, he'd be doing a lot better.
How about we just outlaw political parties.
[QUOTE=Dr.C;51217255]I'm not too sure about that. I feel like someone even crazier and even overtly racist will step up next election. Someone like Arizona's Sheriff that racially profiles Mexicans or Maine's racist governor.[/QUOTE] Except if Trump suffers a massive defeat, it would be clear crazy populism focusing on white voters only will not work.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51217268]How about we just outlaw political parties.[/QUOTE] Then we'd have political committees
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51217256]Yes. No. I won't want a one-party system. And the parties that will eventually replace the GOP are even further right.[/QUOTE] Yeah I suppose you got a point there, but with the declaration of the results, the GOP won't be winning any elections for a good while to come imo, unless the Democrats are truly unfortunate
[QUOTE=Dr.C;51217255]I'm not too sure about that. I feel like someone even crazier and even overtly racist will step up next election. Someone like Arizona's Sheriff that racially profiles Mexicans or Maine's racist governor.[/QUOTE]Almost certainly, but if the GOP has even the slightest inclination towards wanting to remain relevant, those nutters will be unable to steer the course of the Republican party deeper into madness and instead have no choice but to form their own party.
But why Indiana and Missouri? They are less likely "lean democrat" compared to Arizona.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51217290]Yeah I suppose you got a point there, but with the declaration of the results, the GOP won't be winning any elections for a good while to come imo, unless the Democrats are truly unfortunate[/QUOTE] Idk. I could see the GOP putting up someone much better in 4 years and taking the white house back depending on how Hillary's presidency goes.
[QUOTE=Chaitin;51217294]But why Indiana and Missouri? They are less likely "lean democrat" compared to Arizona.[/QUOTE] We're probably looking at electing democrats for governor and senate seats in Indiana this cycle. There is a large, dedicated group that opposes Pence because of his bullshit here, and the local democrats have been very effective at mobilizing. A number of polls have put the presidential race fairly close in Indiana.
[QUOTE=Chaitin;51217294]But why Indiana and Missouri? They are less likely "lean democrat" compared to Arizona.[/QUOTE] There is a good chance Democrats will win Senate in Missouri, due to highly unpopular Republican state government. They're actually even winning in Indiana for Senate. Who knows, maybe both of those states could flip in last 3 weeks? Or at very least ensure Senate victories there.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51217256]Yes. No. I won't want a one-party system. And the parties that will eventually replace the GOP are even further right.[/QUOTE] This doesn't make sense, most of why trump has been curb stomped is because of how far right he is.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51217256]No. I won't want a one-party system. And the parties that will eventually replace the GOP are even further right.[/QUOTE] I did some thinking about this, and a "one-party system" might actually be a practical way to fix American politics. Look at the states that are already so blue that GOP candidates are doomed from the start, like New York. Republicans in those states usually register as Democrats, in order to vote in primaries (when closed primary voting is used) or sway Democratic policy in other ways. Suppose, for a moment, that the GOP collapses and no third party is able to take its place. There would be no reason not to register as Democrat and vote in Democrat primaries, since those candidates will pretty much automatically win. That makes the primaries act like the general election, and makes factions within the Democratic Party act like full parties. That could be a good thing, because party procedures are much easier to change than official government ones. We've been stuck with the Electoral College for at least a century after it stopped making sense - the Single Party can set up more modern voting systems. Want the President to be elected by instant-runoff vote? The Single Party can use that system for deciding their "nominee", and then win unopposed in the not-so-real "real" election. Want the House of Representatives to use mixed-member proportional representation? Set the nomination process that way. Want the Senate to be elected by single transferable vote? Just get the party to set that as their system for nomination. Want to let people vote by mail or by internet or by snapchat dick pics? Just... do it. No Constitutional amendment, no state-by-state legislative battle, just get a party committee to decide to do it, and it's done. That might sound nightmarish, if you're used to bureaucrats that care more for their office empires than for the people they serve, but such a system strongly incentivizes the Single Party to nominate the best possible candidates that are satisfactory to the most possible voters. That in turn incentivizes them to use voting systems and procedures that best reflect the wants of the populace, because if they get lazy/greedy and let their "primaries" nominate candidates that only a plurality approve of, another party could nominate a candidate and beat them, and then we're stuck back with a two-party system again. Gerrymandering would be actively fought by the party itself, because gerrymandering relies on giving your opponent party some easy wins, and a Single Party would want no opponent party to exist. I don't think such a thing is all that likely, and I doubt it would be stable long-term. But it might happen, and it might be a very good thing.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;51217407]I did some thinking about this, and a "one-party system" might actually be a practical way to fix American politics. Look at the states that are already so blue that GOP candidates are doomed from the start, like New York. Republicans in those states usually register as Democrats, in order to vote in primaries (when closed primary voting is used) or sway Democratic policy in other ways. Suppose, for a moment, that the GOP collapses and no third party is able to take its place. There would be no reason not to register as Democrat and vote in Democrat primaries, since those candidates will pretty much automatically win. That makes the primaries act like the general election, and makes factions within the Democratic Party act like full parties. That could be a good thing, because party procedures are much easier to change than official government ones. We've been stuck with the Electoral College for at least a century after it stopped making sense - the Single Party can set up more modern voting systems. Want the President to be elected by instant-runoff vote? The Single Party can use that system for deciding their "nominee", and then win unopposed in the not-so-real "real" election. Want the House of Representatives to use mixed-member proportional representation? Set the nomination process that way. Want the Senate to be elected by single transferable vote? Just get the party to set that as their system for nomination. Want to let people vote by mail or by internet or by snapchat dick pics? Just... do it. No Constitutional amendment, no state-by-state legislative battle, just get a party committee to decide to do it, and it's done. That might sound nightmarish, if you're used to bureaucrats that care more for their office empires than for the people they serve, but such a system strongly incentivizes the Single Party to nominate the best possible candidates that are satisfactory to the most possible voters. That in turn incentivizes them to use voting systems and procedures that best reflect the wants of the populace, because if they get lazy/greedy and let their "primaries" nominate candidates that only a plurality approve of, another party could nominate a candidate and beat them, and then we're stuck back with a two-party system again. Gerrymandering would be actively fought by the party itself, because gerrymandering relies on giving your opponent party some easy wins, and a Single Party would want no opponent party to exist. I don't think such a thing is all that likely, and I doubt it would be stable long-term. But it might happen, and it might be a very good thing.[/QUOTE] Seems like a better way to solve that issue would be two-round elections like France has
[QUOTE=smurfy;51217428]Seems like a better way to solve that issue would be two -round elections like France has[/QUOTE] The "problem" isn't one of deciding what voting system is best, the problem is the sheer inertia of the American system. We have basically the worst possible system for electing people, and the system is too rigid to change it. There's been a decades-long effort just to get the President elected by popular vote instead of electoral college, and [I]none[/I] of the attempts have worked. The Bayh-Celler Amendment died in the Senate. The Every Vote Counts Amendment died in committee in [I]both[/I] houses. The National Populate Vote Interstate Compact has only passed in ten states. Our legislative system is designed to resist change. In many ways, that's a good thing - remember when the GOP tried to push a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? But in some ways, it's harming us, and harming us pretty badly.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;51217407]I did some thinking about this, and a "one-party system" might actually be a practical way to fix American politics. Look at the states that are already so blue that GOP candidates are doomed from the start, like New York. Republicans in those states usually register as Democrats, in order to vote in primaries (when closed primary voting is used) or sway Democratic policy in other ways. Suppose, for a moment, that the GOP collapses and no third party is able to take its place. There would be no reason not to register as Democrat and vote in Democrat primaries, since those candidates will pretty much automatically win. That makes the primaries act like the general election, and makes factions within the Democratic Party act like full parties. That could be a good thing, because party procedures are much easier to change than official government ones. We've been stuck with the Electoral College for at least a century after it stopped making sense - the Single Party can set up more modern voting systems. Want the President to be elected by instant-runoff vote? The Single Party can use that system for deciding their "nominee", and then win unopposed in the not-so-real "real" election. Want the House of Representatives to use mixed-member proportional representation? Set the nomination process that way. Want the Senate to be elected by single transferable vote? Just get the party to set that as their system for nomination. Want to let people vote by mail or by internet or by snapchat dick pics? Just... do it. No Constitutional amendment, no state-by-state legislative battle, just get a party committee to decide to do it, and it's done. That might sound nightmarish, if you're used to bureaucrats that care more for their office empires than for the people they serve, but such a system strongly incentivizes the Single Party to nominate the best possible candidates that are satisfactory to the most possible voters. That in turn incentivizes them to use voting systems and procedures that best reflect the wants of the populace, because if they get lazy/greedy and let their "primaries" nominate candidates that only a plurality approve of, another party could nominate a candidate and beat them, and then we're stuck back with a two-party system again. Gerrymandering would be actively fought by the party itself, because gerrymandering relies on giving your opponent party some easy wins, and a Single Party would want no opponent party to exist. I don't think such a thing is all that likely, and I doubt it would be stable long-term. But it might happen, and it might be a very good thing.[/QUOTE] Horrible idea. Political parties are run by private groups. If they wanted they could just select whichever candidate they wanted and it would be legal in your proposed state.
Not shocking that Clinton is making massive strides in Arizona especially after how disrespectful Trump was toward McCain.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51217217]Good. Hopefully the Republican party loses so badly they never try to field another idiot like Trump again and are discredited for good.[/QUOTE] I've been following this hideous election from the start and I still don't understand how the american people chose clinton v trump when they had candidates like kasich and bernie up for grabs. People chose these candidates somehow
[QUOTE=Elspin;51217531]I've been following this hideous election from the start and I still don't understand how the american people chose clinton v trump when they had candidates like kasich and bernie up for grabs. People chose these candidates somehow[/QUOTE] Clinton won because of name recognition. Trump won because "he tells it like it is" and "he's not PC".
[QUOTE=joshuadim;51217539]Clinton won because of name recognition.[/QUOTE] Name recognition and using "socialist" as a scare word to describe Bernie's policies -- before adopting a number of them into the DNC platform in exchange for him going quietly. American politics, everyone.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51217575]Name recognition and using "socialist" as a scare word to describe Bernie's policies -- before adopting a number of them into the DNC platform in exchange for him going quietly. American politics, everyone.[/QUOTE] It's called compromise. American political history is full of it. [editline]17th October 2016[/editline] For clarification: Compromise in politics is how we staved off a civil war for so long (although it was inevitable anyway), and it's how we managed to form our Constitution in the first place along with the Bill of Rights.
[QUOTE=Dr.C;51217255]I'm not too sure about that. I feel like someone even crazier and even overtly racist will step up next election. Someone like Arizona's Sheriff that racially profiles Mexicans or Maine's racist governor.[/QUOTE] Well I mean, Arizona's legendary Arpaio might get thrown in jail soon for violating anti-discrimination laws and also using gov't money to buy fake info to "prove" a judge that ruled against him was involved in a conspiracy So maybe not him specifically
[QUOTE=Elspin;51217531]I've been following this hideous election from the start and I still don't understand how the american people chose clinton v trump when they had candidates like kasich and bernie up for grabs. People chose these candidates somehow[/QUOTE] Clinton was running against a relatively unknown 'outsider' who was seen as so extremely unlucky to secure any chance at taking the nomination that many dismissed him just because of that. By the time he was able to actually contest her many still didn't know he could do it, especially helped by a large ignorance in primary politics. His supporters helped sully his image a bit, but he did nearly match Clinton, only losing by a surprising 12%, and several times pushing past Clinton in polling. With his views so much further left than many Americans feel comftorable with, I feel like the race was completely fair with how it ended up, though I'd have rathered him. Trump ran against a GOP in chaos because unlike the Democrats they had absolutely no single candidate to throw their weight behind, or two or three to have debate it out before the most sane comes out like with Romney. A small army of run of the mill Conservatives that nobody cared about ran (Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Bush, Carson, Christie). While Christie was looking much like a possible front runner close to the primary, personal scandals dragged him back and his 'straight talker' personality was greatly overshadowed by Trump's own. The Republican voter base was highly against the status quo, wished for non-politicians, and was filled with racist / bigoted loons who Republicans had been courting for years in an effort to discredit Obama, and Trump was crazy enough to appeal to all of them. He proceeded to bully and force his way through every discussion, and made so many extreme and insane claims that he received the entirety of all press. By the time the GOP realized he was actually going to get the nomination this time and tried mobilizing to stop him (trying to decide whether to throw support behind Kasich, arguably the last sane man up for nomination, and Cruz), it was too late to stop Trump and nobody else had a shot of establishing a voter base to fight him or Hillary with.
[QUOTE=joshuadim;51217595]It's called compromise. American political history is full of it. [editline]17th October 2016[/editline] For clarification: Compromise in politics is how we staved off a civil war for so long (although it was inevitable anyway), and it's how we managed to form our Constitution in the first place along with the Bill of Rights.[/QUOTE] I'm in a country that has a multi-party parliamentary system and frequent minority governments (meaning they require supporting votes from the opposition to pass bills), so I understand compromise. I'm talking about the rampant mudslinging and mischaracterization before the compromise. "He's a socialist, you don't want to vote for a socialist." "Well yeah his minimum wage plan and mine are the same but that doesn't make me a socialist." "Okay we're adopting a bunch of his socialist policies in exchange for his support for the nomination, we're now taking a socialist platform to the national election." There's compromise and then there's talking shit and then going back on it for power. :v:
[QUOTE=gman003-main;51217475]The "problem" isn't one of deciding what voting system is best, the problem is the sheer inertia of the American system. We have basically the worst possible system for electing people, and the system is too rigid to change it. There's been a decades-long effort just to get the President elected by popular vote instead of electoral college, and [I]none[/I] of the attempts have worked. The Bayh-Celler Amendment died in the Senate. The Every Vote Counts Amendment died in committee in [I]both[/I] houses. The National Populate Vote Interstate Compact has only passed in ten states. Our legislative system is designed to resist change. In many ways, that's a good thing - remember when the GOP tried to push a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? But in some ways, it's harming us, and harming us pretty badly.[/QUOTE] On top of that our public schools are absolute crap at teaching civics, so most people don't know why things are how they are.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51217667]I'm in a country that has a multi-party parliamentary system and frequent minority governments (meaning they require supporting votes from the opposition to pass bills), so I understand compromise. I'm talking about the rampant mudslinging and mischaracterization before the compromise. "He's a socialist, you don't want to vote for a socialist." "Well yeah his minimum wage plan and mine are the same but that doesn't make me a socialist." "Okay we're adopting a bunch of his socialist policies in exchange for his support for the nomination, we're now taking a socialist platform to the national election." There's compromise and then there's talking shit and then going back on it for power. :v:[/QUOTE] Clinton never really went after him for his Socialist views, most of that was done by Republicans or his own supporters who frequently tried using that to use a victim card. Most of the views Clinton picked up on for compromise weren't even that socialist, or at least not socialist in the eyes of the USA.
[QUOTE=Dr.C;51217255]I'm not too sure about that. I feel like someone even crazier and even overtly racist will step up next election. Someone like Arizona's Sheriff that racially profiles Mexicans or Maine's racist governor.[/QUOTE] Sheriff Arpaio is both on track to lose reelection as well as go to jail.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.