Heroscapers

Heroscapers (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/index.php)
-   General (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Decision 2016 (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=53250)

vegietarian18 November 14th, 2016 06:19 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dok (Post 2121083)
Heh. You realize the Republican candidate just won, right? You know, those guys that nominated Romney in 2012?

There's one extremely powerful reason that the Democrats are basically guaranteed to be more popular, as a brand, in 2020. That's that whatever is wrong in the world can't easily be laid at their feet. There's a reason that GHWB is the only candidate to win a third consecutive term for the same party in the last 68 years. At some point people just blame the president's part for what is wrong in the world.

The last three presidents have all had second terms, so I'm not quick to concede that the party of the president will be worse off in four years. If things go badly, definitely. But a lot of the arguments used against Trump this time (unfit to be president, no experience) won't work once he's actually the president.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dok (Post 2121083)
One other lesson, with the benefit of hindsight, is that Trump actually probably wasn't a very weak general election candidate. In the end the Republican voters pretty much all came home, despite many of them not liking him. So it was really a trade of worse numbers among some independents in return for better returns among a specific demographic set.

No. Not at all. Just last week Trump was considered an extreme long shot to win, and now he was a fine candidate? This is revisionist history. Trump had average turnout for a Republican candidate, but there was his unpredictability. The advantage that should have been Clinton's (drawing out moderates to vote against Trump for stability purposes) was thrown away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dok (Post 2121083)
These are still generalities. I'm pretty lost on what you see as the problems of the Obama administration and why you think a Democratic outsider would/could solve them.

Increasing military involvement in foreign countries. Politician connection with banks and media. Loss of jobs in US. Those are three issues that the Democrats addressed extremely poorly this election, and I think someone outside of their establishment would pretty clearly be able to do better. Then there's also issues like income and racial equality where you can argue that the Democrats tried, but I don't think they did a very good job. What do you think the Democrats did a good job on their messaging on in this election? I'm honestly curious.

IMO, there's no way someone from outside would do worse. So I don't understand your willingness to give them another chance.

dok November 14th, 2016 06:57 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by vegietarian18 (Post 2121103)
Quote:

Originally Posted by dok (Post 2121083)
Heh. You realize the Republican candidate just won, right? You know, those guys that nominated Romney in 2012?

There's one extremely powerful reason that the Democrats are basically guaranteed to be more popular, as a brand, in 2020. That's that whatever is wrong in the world can't easily be laid at their feet. There's a reason that GHWB is the only candidate to win a third consecutive term for the same party in the last 68 years. At some point people just blame the president's part for what is wrong in the world.

The last three presidents have all had second terms, so I'm not quick to concede that the party of the president will be worse off in four years.

You did note that I said the third term for a party is the rare one, not the second, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by vegietarian18 (Post 2121103)
If things go badly, definitely. But a lot of the arguments used against Trump this time (unfit to be president, no experience) won't work once he's actually the president.

Sure, Trump will seem less absurd as president once he's actually been president. His success will depend on his actual performance at that point.

(Aside - I'm not betting the farm he runs for his second term. Not saying he won't, just that I wouldn't be floored if he didn't.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by vegietarian18 (Post 2121103)
Quote:

Originally Posted by dok (Post 2121083)
One other lesson, with the benefit of hindsight, is that Trump actually probably wasn't a very weak general election candidate. In the end the Republican voters pretty much all came home, despite many of them not liking him. So it was really a trade of worse numbers among some independents in return for better returns among a specific demographic set.

No. Not at all. Just last week Trump was considered an extreme long shot to win, and now he was a fine candidate? This is revisionist history.

First, a 30% chance to win is not an extreme long shot. It's more often than I lose in Heroscape, and people aren't that surprised when they beat me.

Heck, even a 12% chance (I believe this was the absolute lowest Trump's chances ever fell at fivethirtyeight) is still not really a crazy long shot. 12% is still a better chance than the final estimates they had for Romney (who many pundits were loudly claiming had a good chance in the final weeks), and far far better than the chances they gave McCain.

Secondly, I didn't say he was a "fine candidate" I said he "probably wasn't a very weak general election candidate". That's kind of damning by faint praise, you see? I'm saying that, given how hyperpartisan the environment is an how many Republicans kind of glumly fell in line and voted for him despite not liking him, he wasn't dramatically worse than other candidates. I don't think most of the other Republican primary candidates would have done dramatically better, because they wouldn't have gotten Trump's unique appeal to the white rural/blue collar demographics. And as it turns out, losing a bunch of moderate voters (fairly evenly distributed around the country) in exchange for some white rural/blue collar voters (higher concentration in certain states) may have been a winning electoral strategy, at least this time around.

And it's kind of pointless to call a statement I explicitly said was "with the benefit of hindsight" a revisionist statement. That's the point of hindsight. I didn't really expect that he would be as efficient in bringing republican leaners back into the fold, but clearly he was. Part of that is definitely Clinton's relative weakness, but part of it is also just how strong partisanship is these days. I remember watching a quote from a voter who said (this is from memory but it's close) "I am voting for the conservative party, and if that clown is the one at the head of that mule train, then I am voting for him."

Quote:

Originally Posted by vegietarian18 (Post 2121103)
Trump had average turnout for a Republican candidate, but there was his unpredictability. The advantage that should have been Clinton's (drawing out moderates to vote against Trump for stability purposes) was thrown away.

Well... they both had pretty average turnouts, if you want to get technical about it. (Clinton won the popular vote, remember?)

I'm (again, and again, and again) not arguing that Clinton was a great or popular candidate or that someone else wouldn't have done better. All I said above was that Trump probably wasn't an especially bad candidate from a Republican electoral perspective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vegietarian18 (Post 2121103)
Quote:

Originally Posted by dok (Post 2121083)
These are still generalities. I'm pretty lost on what you see as the problems of the Obama administration and why you think a Democratic outsider would/could solve them.

Increasing military involvement in foreign countries. Politician connection with banks and media. Loss of jobs in US. Those are three issues that the Democrats addressed extremely poorly this election, and I think someone outside of their establishment would pretty clearly be able to do better. Then there's also issues like income and racial equality where you can argue that the Democrats tried, but I don't think they did a very good job. What do you think the Democrats did a good job on their messaging on in this election? I'm honestly curious.

I don't think they did measurably worse on jobs than they did on the latter two issues you mention. But really, the campaign wasn't very issue-driven. Then again, was Obama's 2012 campaign issue-driven? What was Obama's big policy push? This is part of why it's so hard to win a third term for the same party. You lack the advantage of being the sitting president but you also have to kind of defend the status quo. It's a tough spot to be in.

I definitely agree some outsider would have had a better ability to run on a rejection of, say, current foreign military involvement. But unless that Democratic outsider was going to run against the sitting U.S. president, they would be kind of in a quandry. And I don't think running against Obama was the winning strategy this time around. So, really, the best move strategically would have been to run mostly defending the status quo, but picking someone with less baggage and more charisma to do it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vegietarian18 (Post 2121103)
IMO, there's no way someone from outside would do worse. So I don't understand your willingness to give them another chance.

I'm also quite open to an outside, fresh face in 2020. But my general opinion is that insider/outsider is not a big deal. In the end a president has to work within institutions to make changes. All presidents become insiders. What matters is what policies they pursue and how effective they are in that pursuit.

For example, say reigning in Wall Street is your big issue (not saying it is, just saying it by way of example). Elizabeth Warren is an insider by any reasonable definition, but she would seem like a very strong candidate to support if that was your lean.

Hahma November 14th, 2016 11:17 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raider30 (Post 2120928)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2120909)
So, the White House has its first staffer. Stephen Bannon, chief strategist for the President of the United States. One of the most powerful people on earth, a notorious racist, anti-Semite, corrupt, vile man.

Here we go!

Not that I'd doubt you as I don't really know the guy, but other than him working for Breitbart and his wife saying in a court proceeding against him that he possibly made some anti-Semitic comments about choosing a school for his daughters, wikipedia didn't have anything to explain how he's a notorious racits, corrupt, or vile(though I suspect this is just a pejorative based of him being the other things you mentioned...:) )

You sir, are the great link master in this thread, so hit me with it. :)

- Raider30


http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/11/what...ty-groups.html

Rich10 November 17th, 2016 12:19 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2120975)
They aren't protesting because they lost. They are protesting because they are afraid. And if you don't see that, and if you don't see why, then you aren't looking very hard.

I thought that protests were a call for change. An anti-war protest is designed to change public opinion and politicians' opinions on a war. The protests against the Iran nuclear deal were designed to change public opinion and get politicians to vote against the deal. Protests by Black Lives Matter were designed to inform people about police behaviors and to change those behaviors.

I just don't get a protest about being angry or afraid about the outcome of an election. Trump lost the popular vote; I don't think that anyone is confused that this was a very close election. Unless their protests are designed to get faithless electors to change their vote or to convince Trump to not take the presidency (both of which seem very unlikely), I still don't get it. If you want to take action, vote. If you want to take more action, volunteer for the candidate of your choice. I really don't see protesting as being meaningful in any way.

Dysole November 17th, 2016 01:58 AM

Shrug
 
After the initial election, a protest seemed like an okay thing to do. I wasn't going to do it but I empathized. At this point, it just seems like something someone is doing to make themselves feel good. I've already started directing my efforts towards affecting positive change that I believe in (e.g. submitting a volunteer application with Trans Lifeline) and I think that's the optimal route for people unhappy with the election result to take. Protests have been heard and I feel we've reached a point of diminishing returns. Someone can certainly continue as it's their right, but I'm going to wonder why they're not taking their time and directing it towards helping the things they wish to preserve.

~Dysole, maybe a little grumpy

Hahma November 17th, 2016 07:02 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I can't speak for why people are protesting still. If it's because they are sore losers, then they need to get past it. I haven't been getting into the details of the why's, as I'm sure there are many. But there are still people that may be afraid, and people that care about those people. When it is being talked about how Muslim registration is being put together, and citing Japanese internment camps during WWII as precedence, then some people may object to that.

http://www.motherjones.com/media/201...uslim-registry

Dad_Scaper November 17th, 2016 09:37 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Bernie Sanders once said, on a radio interview, that if people wanted free tuition for college it would be easy. "Get 100,000 people to march on the Mall, and you will have free tuition for college." It was an exaggeration, but his point was that politicians respond to action by voters. Protest is visible action.

If your constituents are fighting, and you are their representative, then you are more likely to be more energetic on their behalf. And if you are their President, you might - just might - hesitate to cross them, if you care about "the look" of having people protesting in the street.

Dysole, I think your approach to making a positive change in the world is more practical. When Colin Kaepernick first sat down during the National Anthem, I was sympathetic to his cause. To his cause. I didn't think that his protest, however, was practical, in the sense that (1) it lacked a measurable goal/win condition, which meant that (2) there was, therefore, no way for it to have a neat ending, as far as I could tell.

All of which was fine. If he wants to sit - and he did sit, and not kneel, at the beginning - that's fine with me. God bless him and his protest, even if it's not clear what *practical* things people might do differently, if they wanted to honor it. Some police officer in Lawrence, Kansas, will (rightly or wrongly) weigh Kap's decision to sit before pulling a trigger? Not likely. So that was a concern I had, though I didn't really discuss it, because I didn't care if he sat, kneeled, or stood. It's his personal decision.

At least with these protesters, we might say they want their voices heard while it matters by people making relevant decisions. I saw a report that Jeff Sessions is being considered for a top position, maybe AG. Well, this is a guy who has mocked civil rights organizations and accused a white civil rights lawyer of being a "disgrace to his race," and if he was AG then he would be responsible for the federal prosecution of civil rights violations. The protests may ultimately be ineffective, but ideally, some of the powers that be may consider that there is furious opposition to the divisiveness perceived in the campaign, and that maybe such a controversial figure would be a poor choice for AG.

Now, I don't think it's likely to be effective. Considering other people tapped for the transition team & the new administration, Sessions - though a terrible choice, given his history of racially-charged rhetoric - is not as crazy as Frank Gaffney, a loony birther conspiracy theorist on the transition team. Thankfully, at least former ill-equipped candidate Dr. Ben Carson had the self-awareness to know that it takes more than celebrity status to run a government agency.

What are the protesters trying to accomplish? There are important decisions being made right now, during the transition. What the protesters can accomplish - they may be unsuccessful, but I would never criticize them for trying - is to remind the people constituting the incoming administration that some members of the public are dissatisfied with what they've seen so far. And what's happened so far, even before inauguration, matters, and what's happening today matters, and what happens tomorrow matters, too. So they want their voices heard.

Remember, even though they didn't vote for Trump, he will be their President, too. He represents them, just as he represents me and he represents most of you. Regardless of who I supported, he will be my President, which carries with it a responsibility from me to him, and a responsibility from him to me.

Hahma November 17th, 2016 10:22 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
For sure, protests do pose as a reminder to politicians that there are people paying attention to certain issues and how they are addressed.

Nukatha November 17th, 2016 05:26 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I still don't like the guy, but here's a rather large compilation of anecdotal evidence from a bunch of people on his personal temperament prior to the campaign:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/c...t_with_donald/

This stuff actually makes me think we're going to be okay.

Hahma November 17th, 2016 06:00 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I have no doubt that he can be charming and has some good qualities, but we've seen during the campaign that he has other qualities as well. Other people that have had interactions with him either though business or Miss Universe can probably attest to some other anecdotes that are less than pleasant.

When Trump met with Obama after the election, he seemed pleasant enough, but then he gets on Twitter and rips people or NY Times. Just like during the debates, where he would look good for awhile and then degenerate into the "other guy".

So people may still be apprehensive because he has shown multiple sides.

There may also be some questions as to his appointments, so it may not only be Trump that people have concerns about.

Ultimately, we'll see over time. Despite my dislike for him, I (grudgingly) still want him to succeed because it will be better for the country.

Dad_Scaper November 17th, 2016 06:46 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I'm sure he's nice. He appears very similar to a malignant narcissist I've known, and that guy was normally nice, too. Both men have a natural charisma that explains, at least partly, their success in life.

I want Trump to succeed. I hope he does. So far, his appointments and his rhetoric are troubling.

Consider that it has now been widely reported that he's spoken with a number of world leaders now without speaking to anyone from the State Department first. So, you know, that's a little scary. To me, anyway. And it's consistent with the concern, leveled by many during the campaign, that he was not interested in finding out what he didn't already know. Also scary, to me. But fingers crossed, hopefully we will be ok.

edit: And let's not forget the "anecdotal evidence" of over a dozen women who came forward and said he sexually assaulted them, including one who said that he had assaulted her when she was a child, and her sworn affidavit was corroborated by the sworn affidavit of an eyewitness.

I hope he does a great job and I hope he's a good guy. I'm nervous, though. His behavior during the campaign, and before the campaign, and his official actions (and inactions) during the transition, is all causing me to be nervous.

Rich10 November 17th, 2016 10:10 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2121805)
I want Trump to succeed. I hope he does. So far, his appointments and his rhetoric are troubling.



I hope he does a great job and I hope he's a good guy. I'm nervous, though. His behavior during the campaign, and before the campaign, and his official actions (and inactions) during the transition, is all causing me to be nervous.

I remember Obama's first 100 days. With a Democrat House and Senate, he passed a stimulus package, children's health insurance, healthcare reform, equal pay for women, stem cell research, etc. Republicans were outraged, but that's what Obama ran on. What did they expect?

Trump will be president with a Republican House and Senate. He ran on immigration, health reform, and "big league jobs". That's what you have to expect that he will take action on. There will likely be a stimulus package, maybe they could build a wall. I would also expect lower tax rates and conservative Supreme Court justices. Hopefully, he doesn't make some hyuge mistake in foreign policy.

I'm sure that the USA will succeed, regardless of who our president is.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.