DescentBB

Women did vote, in droves, but not enough. More young white males voted than we could muster. Young white males with delusions of a white, Christian, paternal ethnocracy gave Trump a win. Those women who sat at home and didn't vote screwed us all. Back to the 1950's and all gains we made during the sexual revolution. I wonder how most women will respond to that or do they even realize what they're soon going to lose?

It's over, well several hours ago, Kamala could only get an additional 10 electoral votes.

TheWhat wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 2:52 pm What is sensible about that? Its sad, very sad that if a person loses its because of a grand conspiracy and if they win its because of greatness. Like a petulant athlete.

Im just worried that after he fills a couple of supreme court slots with 40 year olds Ill be forced to wave a flag and dress like a realator.

I thought you meant the opposite.

Ferno wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 3:06 pmDid you?

I did, via the web! (Not kidding.) One of the few benefits of being an expat.

Spidey wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 1:57 pm Well, in my opinion that is faulty logic, along the same lines as independents are just cowards for not choosing a side.

But if you want to blame people like me for Harris losing the race, be my guest.

*Every* election the DBB lambasts everyone who votes third party, because *this* election is the most important election ever, and yet every election the DBB, who already votes for the Democrat no matter what they say or do, can't understand why the Democratic Party won't represent their actual views.

And that's why they repeatedly lose in an election where they should have no problem winning. I call it the wishy washy syndrome. They just can't seem to make a coherant platform, assuming women and minorities will automatically kiss their ring. They underestimate what makes people vote Republican, especially rural males. Paternalism and gun culture is a big part of that, thanks to religion and white tribalism. As a party, they can't afford to ignore that. So with the current strong leader paternalistic mindset, she was doomed to lose the male vote. What's laughable is that Trump is nothing but a piss ant, fat little pantywaist who'd cower if someone came at him with a weapon. The only reason he stood there with his fist raised in defiance after getting shot at is because his S.S. detail put down the threat. He's the emperor with no clothes who stands with other more powerful people, like Putin, just to keep HIS power. What a whimp. Now the ★■◆● is president, again.

In 2016, I voted third party because I couldn't stand either main party candidate. It was almost like the Dems couldn't hear that Clinton was in all reality, universally reviled by most as an arrogant queen undeserving of office again. I also voted Republican years ago, Bush, because I couldn't get out of my head the picture of Al Gore standing there in solidarity with Bill Clinton after he was impeached. Bill was a scumbag and still is. Why vote for someone who stands there in solidarity with him if he's not going to be his own man?

However, even though Harris really had no apparent platform other than standing with women, I kind of liked her. I even liked Walz, a folksie Minnesotan. The idea of a woman president was appealing and since she'd gone through law school, smart. But most importantly, I was wanting to protect myself. For the Republican Party that tries to represent freedom and liberty from the government, they've sure strayed into the state controlling all things gender related and especially women. That's not freedom for me. That's control and the worst type of repression. I thought I lived in a country that rejected returning women back to the days if "The Handmaiden's Tale" and Purity Balls, but I guess not. However, if they want a fight, they'll get a fight.

Jeff250 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 6:18 am *Every* election the DBB lambasts everyone who votes third party, because *this* election is the most important election ever, and yet every election the DBB, who already votes for the Democrat no matter what they say or do, can't understand why the Democratic Party won't represent their actual views.

That's me. I do this. Because I disagree with it both morally and on its strategic merit. Whatever message you’re trying to send won’t be received, and you increase the chance of the outcome you don’t prefer.

I have never in my entire life seen the Democrats lose a general election and have the takeaway be that they should've moved closer to what I want. It’s always been primaries that have moved things. That’s where the pressure is, and that’s where the signal is clearest.

Of course, this is all from my left of the Democratic party perspective.

Still, I think the Democrats need a clear message. It was kind of muddled except for the abortion issue. They need a coherent and detailed plan on what they'll do once in office other than more of Biden. But I think this time, they were running against an underpinning of paternalism. Most males, especially conservative males, don't like the idea of a woman as the leader of our nation, period. It's especially become locked within the Evangelical Church's psyche as a requirement for a national leader, a strong, MALE figure who will protect the country from immigrants, criminals and foreign enemies and protect their religion from repression. A woman's place is in the home. The selection of J.D. Vance really cemented that stance This paternalism is also a culmination of their decades long Culture Wars, beginning with worshiping a strong president like Teddy Roosevelt and American icons like John Wayne. They ignore the fact that Teddy was a short little man who overcompensated for that shortness with bravado and adventure and Wayne, who was a womanizing drunkard with a bad temper and the arrogance to match. Many young men in line voting were asked who'd they vote for. Most came out and said Trump, although they rarely alluded to the male leader reason. But since 60% of this nation is made up of Evangelicals, it's probably a good correlation.

But they did believe Trump would do better than Harris on the economy. Why? How did they come up with this stupid idea, despite the fact that Trump and his business ventures were mostly failures and it was Trump that royally screwed up the pandemic response and the supply chain aftermath that lead to the inflationary condition we're still recovering from. Unfortunately, Trump just had better messaging, as vile and repulsive as that was and people have sucked into his tariffs solution. Uh huh. that's gonna work out great. So a lack of a detailed plan from the Dems on how they were going to lower housing and food prices got them as well. Neither had a solution for the homeless and mental illness crisis either. Sure, Harris said she'd go after price gouging, but how? Nothing concrete was ever put forth.

The other reason was immigration. Most thought that too many had come in, had been dumped on northern cities with no thought for how to deal with them, a lot of people believed that there were criminals and terrorists amongst the flood, and Trump was the president who'd stop it. A lot of Americans even want them deported, which Trump claimed he'd do. Biden's immigration controls appeared abysmal, especially early on in his presidency. I'll have to admit, those scenes of people flooding across the Texas border were not a good look for Biden. Those images have stuck in a lot of American's minds too. Never mind that Trump ordered the Republicans to vote against any Biden Immigration deal before the election.

A biting take on MAGA, Christianity and the state of our nation.

Vander wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 1:34 pm
That's me. I do this. Because I disagree with it both morally and on its strategic merit. Whatever message you’re trying to send won’t be received, and you increase the chance of the outcome you don’t prefer.

I have never in my entire life seen the Democrats lose a general election and have the takeaway be that they should've moved closer to what I want. It’s always been primaries that have moved things. That’s where the pressure is, and that’s where the signal is clearest.

Of course, this is all from my left of the Democratic party perspective.

While I share your skepticism concerning the Democratic Party's ability to receive this (or any) message, I don't vote in a swing state, and chances are you don't either, so your voting strategy is just as symbolic as mine and just as reliant on sending a message to someone who probably isn't listening.

The Democrats do occasionally show signs of learning lessons, if only in part. After their 2016 loss, they reduced (but did not eliminate) the power of superdelegates in their nomination process. That change cannot be attributed to the outcome of a primary election.

I think everyone should vote like they're in a swing state.

Jeff250 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 1:44 pm After their 2016 loss, they reduced (but did not eliminate) the power of superdelegates in their nomination process. That change cannot be attributed to the outcome of a primary election.

I'm not sure how you can say this, since it paths back pretty directly to Sanders' insurgent primary campaign.

Vander wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 5:13 pm I think everyone should vote like they're in a swing state.

It's certainly your right to vote that way! I hope that whoever you are trying to send a message to with your vote receives it (sincerely).

Vander wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 5:13 pm I'm not sure how you can say this, since it paths back pretty directly to Sanders' insurgent primary campaign.

The superdelegate system is related to primary elections, but if your model is, the way to effect change in the Democratic Party is to elect leaders in the primaries who believe in that change, which leader was running on changing the superdelegate system and was elected to change it? Thus, there must be ways of effecting change in the Democratic Party other than by electing leaders in primaries who believe in that change. In my opinion, the Democratic Party reduced the power of superdelegates as a result of the number of disaffected Bernie Sanders supporters who voted third party (or who did not turn out to vote). I do not believe that the Democratic Party would have made this change had Bernie Sanders supporters turned out to vote for Hillary Clinton in overwhelming numbers under the motivation that at least she was better than Trump. But I cannot prove this of course.

If I recall, ~80% of Sanders primary voters voted for Clinton in the general, and there were a lot more Sanders > Trump voters than Sanders > third party voters. I remember reporting around that time that there were more Clinton > Not Obama voters in 2008 than Sanders > Not Clinton voters in 2016. This reporting was in response to the initial effort to attack "Bernie Bros," which was a decent example of Democrats first instinct in a loss to blame their left.

Anyway, the superdelegate change wasn't the result of trying to entice back the small fraction of Sanders primary voters going third party in the general. It was the result of 40% of the party voting for Sanders in the primary, with Sanders railing against superdelegates specifically, and trying to keep them on side.

What do you mean by "to keep them on side"? Does that not ultimately reduce to, to keep them voting for Democrats in general elections?

I think what everybody is missing is that both parties have been pulling further and further to their extremes. With the Dems, it was the Sanders/Warren Progressive Wing. With the Republicans, it was the MAGA Trump wing. Members of both parties have accused each other of being too extreme. But with the Republicans, they finally DID succeed in pulling in a lot of their conservative base, plus a lot of independents, especially young, rural males. The mainstream Democratic Party has been waffling on the Progressive Movement, out of fear of losing mainstream Dems and especially Independents. I don't think they've lost most of their base, but they have lost quite a few Independent males, which has eroded their numbers. The Republicans have long since corned the Evangelical vote, a whole group of racists, nationalists and paternalists who've corrupted their own religion in favor of strongman fascism and that loss was enough to sink Harris. A woman of color and of a mixed ethnicity (not white) wanting to be president. Think about it. A double whammy was against her. Never mind she was smart and experienced and ready for office without a grudge.

What's funny is that most voters who voted for Trump didn't care one bit about his plans, character or behavior. They just thought of him a strongman who will screw over those liberals, stop the elite cabal, protect gun ownership, fix the economy and wall up the southern border. Unfortunately, the Dems seemed to ignore the border problem for the last 4 years and have persisted with gun control or banning measures, so most of these people voted with their emotions, especially latent racism and misogyny, not with what's soon going to be a fascist, repressive reality and a loss of democracy for the U.S.A. We're exactly following the rise of the Nazis in Germany. They'd better be happy with their last vote because they won't get to vote for a long time, if ever again.

What I also find interesting is that the Democrats tried to get rid of the filibuster during their last 4 years. Now, they're looking at wielding it since the Senate is now Republican and the House is almost that way.

Don't buy into the bull★■◆● propaganda, the Democrats aren't even remotely left, let alone extreme left, they almost exclusively bring forward only the most pathetic tepid watered-down barely progressive policy ideas imaginable short of just going full right wing themselves.

All the problems the right wingers complain about and blame on democrats are made up bull★■◆●. Which is why even if Republicans take full control of the government, they will not fix any of the issues they complain about.

So, while I was checking some results, I noticed that Nevada has a ballot option "None of these candidates" that pulled like 1.3% of the vote, which I thought was funny.

I was also reading an article that stated that something like 50% of liberals now want to move to states like California, Oregon and New York...yea will help your party in the next EC.

Concentrating into the blue states will have no significant impact either way on the EC once the next census adjusts the number of representatives. It isn't strictly the popular vote, but it can't entirely escape the popular vote either.

Krom wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 2:00 pm Don't buy into the bull★■◆● propaganda, the Democrats aren't even remotely left, let alone extreme left, they almost exclusively bring forward only the most pathetic tepid watered-down barely progressive policy ideas imaginable short of just going full right wing themselves.

All the problems the right wingers complain about and blame on democrats are made up bull★■◆●. Which is why even if Republicans take full control of the government, they will not fix any of the issues they complain about.

Seriously. The Democrats were focused on chasing never-Trump Republicans like the ★■◆●ing Cheneys while ignoring the progressive policies that, oh hey, turn out to be pretty popular with the working class if they're marketed properly! Like, take a look at the various initiatives that were on the ballot across multiple states. The majority of initiatives enshrining abortion rights won, including in a few otherwise-red states (and Florida's would have won too if it wasn't rigged by that asinine 60% supermajority requirement), and that's not counting those that passed in the past year or two. There were a few other initiatives rejecting public funding for private/religious schools. Every time the Democrats lose in a national election, they turn on their own left wing instead of learning the real lesson. Bernie has it right.

Jeff250 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 10:18 am What do you mean by "to keep them on side"? Does that not ultimately reduce to, to keep them voting for Democrats in general elections?

Yes? When a large faction in the party signals in the primary that they want this changed, often explicitly, and the party is responsive to some extent, I don't think the comparatively tiny fraction of third party general voters deserves credit for it. Hell, they probably hurt the effort if anything.

Anyone who doesn't vote for Democrats no matter what they say or do can take credit. You say that third party voters shouldn't take credit due to what a small number they are. We could debate whether that number is truly small, especially circa 2016, but it isn't even relevant because you're using an absolute measure where you should be using a relative one instead.

As a thought experiment, if everyone always voted Republican or Democrat, whichever candidate was closest to one's own views, then the optimal strategy would be for Democrats running in a general election to take the Republican's position on the conservative-liberal spectrum and be that liberal plus epsilon. (Conversely, the optimal Republican strategy would be to take the Democrat's liberalness and be that liberal minus epsilon.) It is already a common lamentation how much the candidates drift toward the center after a primary election, but the reason why they do this is because too many people vote for the Republican or Democrat no matter what they say or do.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 1:41 pmI think what everybody is missing is that both parties have been pulling further and further to their extremes.

What in the holy hell are you talking about? Sanders and Warren barely qualify as Left and we didn't hear anything from them this election. There isn't even a real left-wing branch of the Democratic Party. Jesus...

Jeff250 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 7:27 amIt is already a common lamentation how much the candidates drift toward the center after a primary election, but the reason why they do this is because too many people vote for the Republican or Democrat no matter what they say or do.

Yes, but this is kind of a chicken/egg problem, no? Feels like this is the natural result of FPTP voting. I agree with Vander that, given a two-party system, the only viable way to make change is from within a party through primaries. The success of the 2000s Tea Party movement seems to indicate that is true? Maybe the only way to break the cycle is seeing where approval voting has support (Missouri, North Dakota) and try to emulate and propagate that success? Though it feels like it's too late. We'll probably have 8 years of Trump if he lives that long followed by his legacy.

Krom, vision, I know that. I'm not an idiot. Sanders is about as far from being a socialist commie as I am from being a MAGA Trumpturd. But to Trumpers, EVERYONE to the left of them is a commie, and I mean EVERYONE, that's how deluded they are. So even a whiff of Sanders is enough to send them into fight those commie conniptions. woodchip's views and comments are all the evidence you need. I happen to like many of Sander's ideas too.

So now all these Evangelical Christians have elected their ★■◆●ing Old Testament King Saul. Only in our King Trump's case, he's not going to be nice at first. He's going to into Papa Doc or Hitler territory right from the get go and attack anyone who protects David. I told my sister that if she voted for Trump and he won, I would never talk to her again. So I kept my promise out of shear, unadulterated anger and so thoroughly burned that family bridge in an email that there's no rebuilding it, ever. She is dead to me, forever. She knows I'm trans, but she chose her church, Trump and Project 2025 (which she didn't have the time to read either) over her family and our country when she and her husband entered the voting booth.

Jeff250 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 7:27 am Anyone who doesn't vote for Democrats no matter what they say or do can take credit.

Sanders attracted a block of primary voters which translated to power within the party. After he lost the primary, he endorsed and campaigned for Clinton. His ability to bring most his voters along with him to Clinton was a display of that power. His inability to bring along the Bernie > third party voters detracted from that display. Put simply, it was Bernie's power base that the party was responsive to.

I mean, had Clinton won, the party would've still likely made the change to superdelegates because of that block of support to do so.

You want to credit people whose sole contribution is providing an example of not voting for the Democrat in the general, which I guess at some point someone has to pull a trigger to prove that waving a loaded gun is actually dangerous?

Like I said, I'm coming at this from the left of the Democratic party. Almost every move the party has made towards me has been through the primaries. (not just Presidential) It's simply been the most effective time. General losses, the opposite. At the same time, the stakes of general elections have gone through the roof. So I think if you have any preference at all between the two available outcomes of a general, you should actively vote for it.

But how do you incentivize candidates to not drift toward the center after a primary election using primary elections?

Vander wrote:At the same time, the stakes of general elections have gone through the roof. So I think if you have any preference at all between the two available outcomes of a general, you should actively vote for it.

I am just not persuaded by that kind of utilitarianism. If you were consistently utilitarian, you would spend the time that you used to vote to pick up litter, because there is more expected utility in doing that than in making a single vote. So of course some sort of duty comes into play here to justify voting, but a duty to do what? Vote for the candidate best representing your views? No, for some reason it's still a duty to vote for only one of two candidates. Even in non-swing states, where most people live.

vision wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 1:01 pmYes, but this is kind of a chicken/egg problem, no? Feels like this is the natural result of FPTP voting.

It is!

Jeff250 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 8:27 am But how do you incentivize candidates to not drift toward the center after a primary election using primary elections?

For the most part, I think it's just something that you have to accept is likely to happen. It's a compromise for the voter, and I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just trying to convince you that just because the general election is the most consequential choke point doesn't mean it's the most effective place to influence the direction of a party. This is aside from, or maybe even because of the fact that it's *too* consequential. It's maybe the difference between Bush's environmental policy or Gore's. Between Trump nominating 3 Justices or Clinton. The stakes are too high to send even a specific message to a party, much less an ambiguous one.

wrote:So of course some sort of duty comes into play here to justify voting, but a duty to do what?

Not duty, responsibility. And not to a party, to the future. I'm not voting in the general for the sake of the party, I'm voting in the general to choose between the two futures offered. Yes, it sucks there are only two, but there are only two, and one of them will happen. Want guide one of the two futures? The primaries are proven to be where it's most effectively directed. Want more than two options? That's probably a different topic, and needs to be considered within the reality where fascism is currently ascendant.

To be honest, I've been actively avoiding news and commentary as much as possible for the past week for purely mental health reasons. It'll likely take me a while to start wrapping my head around the new reality. It's entirely possible I may come to believe the Democratic Party needs to die, and the faster the better. But even if that happens, I don't think my opinion on general elections will change. (I'd just consider something else the more preferred outcome)

Vander wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 1:34 pmTo be honest, I've been actively avoiding news and commentary as much as possible for the past week for purely mental health reasons.

Glad I'm not the only one, basically pulled the plug on reading anything political since last Wednesday and I really don't miss it.

I am really starting to think that perhaps we should follow some of the examples in European countries where it is illegal to campaign outside of the 6 weeks before the relevant election. Of course European countries are much smaller than the whole of the US so that may be unrealistic, but perhaps limiting election season to only 90 or 120 days here would get it more to the point.

Might as well avoid it. The network media outlets are only sane-washing all things Trump and I think it's purely out of fear. Fear he will try or succeed in shutting them down and toss them in jail. But at some point, either we fight for democracy, or let America become the next empire that fails. Most empires fail after around 250 years and our 250th anniversary is in 2026, so we'll probably not buck the trend with a government full of revenge-seeking, nutty MAGAites.

I get the enormous stakes, but they are multiplied by astronomically tiny probabilities of your vote determining the election. In a non-swing state, that probability is zero. That's why that kind of argument falls flat to me. If it was just about making the most for the future, I could have spent the hour I spent voting donating blood instead.

I know that some found comic relief from these shows during the Trump presidency, but I found it difficult to even watch the Daily Show or late night talk shows during the first Trump presidency, despite really enjoying those kinds of shows normally. Each joke was a few moments of laughter followed by a persisting sadness, and it seemed almost inevitable that something Trump-related would be brought up every evening.

I was wondering about this. In many states, Dem candidates, including women, won their races, even in North Carolina. Yet Trump wins the presidential vote from those same voters? That is odd. I also didn't know that vote results from electronic voting machines was transmitted through Musk's Starlink network and Musk apparently knew Trump won hours before the networks. There are also thousands of votes where only Trump was selected and no other races were checked on those ballots. Something stinks to high heaven.

Jeff250 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 9:09 pm I get the enormous stakes, but they are multiplied by astronomically tiny probabilities of your vote determining the election.

Sure, individual votes are mostly a drop in an ocean, but doesn't the act of discussing voting strategy assume some level of attempted persuasion of other voters?

In a non-swing state, that probability is zero. That's why that kind of argument falls flat to me. If it was just about making the most for the future, I could have spent the hour I spent voting donating blood instead.

The way I see it, we're discussing things on the internet. I don't know where anyone that might read what I write lives. Tiny margins matter in some places. Hell, my Congressional District had a top 2 jungle primary that ended with 2nd and 3rd tied. (after a recount 5 votes separated them out of 200,000) I'm not saying the stakes were existential, just that sometimes a few votes here or there really do matter, and you never really know until after the fact. That's why I think it's best to vote like it matters, no matter where you live.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 9:32 pm I was wondering about this. In many states, Dem candidates, including women, won their races, even in North Carolina. Yet Trump wins the presidential vote from those same voters? That is odd. I also didn't know that vote results from electronic voting machines was transmitted through Musk's Starlink network and Musk apparently knew Trump won hours before the networks. There are also thousands of votes where only Trump was selected and no other races were checked on those ballots. Something stinks to high heaven.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Vander wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:54 pm The way I see it, we're discussing things on the internet. I don't know where anyone that might read what I write lives. Tiny margins matter in some places. Hell, my Congressional District had a top 2 jungle primary that ended with 2nd and 3rd tied. (after a recount 5 votes separated them out of 200,000) I'm not saying the stakes were existential, just that sometimes a few votes here or there really do matter, and you never really know until after the fact. That's why I think it's best to vote like it matters, no matter where you live.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that if you knew where someone lived (e.g., California), you might give them different advice in a one-on-one conversation concerning whether they should vote for a third party for President than what you are saying more broadly here?

Vander wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:54 pm Sure, individual votes are mostly a drop in an ocean, but doesn't the act of discussing voting strategy assume some level of attempted persuasion of other voters?

I'm happy to assume by way of axiom that we should vote, but only if you are willing to assume by way of axiom that we should vote for the candidates that we would most want to be elected!

I'm saying that I'd give the same broadly applicable advice, not that I don't recognize that there can be a different calculus.

Neo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 4:49 am Okay, now they finished.

Donald Trump won x_x

EDIT: it's a projected win at the moment x_x

Why can't we talk about abortion here?

So go start a thread about women's rights and the 4B movement.

so I have to make that the subject line instead of 'abortion' like I did before?

Sure, why not?

Don't encourage him TigerRaptor.

Oh, please.

Go chase a ball or something fun Neo.

Monsterball? Nobody plays it anymore.