| |
|
11-03-2016, 08:01 PM
|
#341 |
|
Derrrrrrrrrrrrrp.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The land of fartz and buttz
Posts: 8,266
|
^
Trump has been embarrassingly profitable for mass media. Why would they let a little thing like him becoming President stop that?
__________________
boop |
|
|
|
11-03-2016, 08:22 PM
|
#342 | |
|
Erotic Esquire
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,563
|
Quote:
The Clinton campaign seemed to have a solid strategy to utilize the media against Trump in the past month or so, but they've completely run out of material in this last week, ceding the narrative to the FBI. Bad planning on their part. If they've really run out of new Trump oppo stories they should've held onto a couple of their gems a little longer before dropping them. Mass media outlets like CNN love scandals wherever they can dig 'em up, they haven't shielded Trump like Fox News or Breitbart would. The problem with moderate sites like CNN or NBC News is one of false equivalence, wherein they'll try to make Hillary's e-mail shenanigans sound every bit as devastating as the whole composite of Trump's myriads of sins, but they sure would love to run any story on Trump's criminality they could possibly get their hands on. It's borderline shocking at this point that we haven't seen, say, the unedited footage from Celebrity Apprentice at this point. Trump has to have more skeletons in his closet, I'm surprised skeletons weren't elegantly planned by Clinton's campaign to drop as bombshells in this crucial week for her campaign, but even independently of what media sites like CNN deign to cover, I'm not seeing any new substantive leaks directly from Hillary's campaign sources.
__________________
WARNING: Snek's all up in this thread. Be prepared to read massive walls of text. Last edited by Solid Snake; 11-03-2016 at 08:45 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-03-2016, 08:51 PM
|
#343 |
|
rollerpocher tycoon
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,808
|
@Snake: what issues does a popular vote system have, if you don't mind humouring me? (Didn't quote it because I'm on my phone.)
|
|
|
|
|
11-03-2016, 09:30 PM
|
#344 | |
|
Erotic Esquire
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,563
|
My two cents
Quote:
For example: Hispanics in disproportionately-Hispanic states like New Mexico, Arizona and Florida. In a pure popular vote system, you just need to win a majority of the votes nationally. Period. Conservatives fret about this because, in theory, 'flyover country' and the concerns of rural Americans in rural states would be ignored as campaigns would disproportionately invest in urban areas like New York City and Los Angeles. And they're not entirely wrong, from an objective perspective; if you're trying to win a national popular vote campaign you'll receive the maximum potential return-on-investment by disproportionately targeting densely populated urban areas, and avoiding or ignoring the concerns of hard-to-reach rural communities in places like Iowa or Montana. That's all probably true but as a progressive, I'm more worried about how a pure popular vote system reinforces majoritarian rule at the expense of minority groups who actually currently benefit from the Electoral College's regionalism. If you're a Hispanic voter in a contested state that has a disproportionately large number of Hispanic voters, in order to win your state, the Democratic candidate is going to have to talk about your issues to win your constituency over. Hell, even the Republican candidate is going to have to visit your state and pay lip service to specific issues impacting your community and your region of the nation. By contrast, a pure-majoritarian system opens up a greater opportunity for a white nationalist candidate with high levels of enthusiasm from core supporters -- someone like Donald Trump -- to win the popular vote simply by exclusively catering to the will of the majority of national voters in this country, who are white. If there's no Electoral College system in the primaries and we're doing this by a national majority vote, you're not going to have -- as an example -- Bernie and Hillary investing into understanding and crafting policies around Puerto Rico's financial issues (as they did in the primary to try to win Puerto Rico's allotment of delegates for the Convention), as Puerto Rico's voters are meaningless compared to voters in progressive hotbeds like New York City or LA. Similarly, national primaries and a national election means no candidate in their right mind is going to make the investment to woo voters in places like Hawaii or Alaska, which means issues impacting those states in particular may be ignored as inconsequential. In general, I'd expect the result for both primaries and the general election to translate to Most White Democrats vs. White Republicans. Republicans are even less incentive to care what minorities think about their plans because they can coast on the majority white vote without worrying about minorities in battleground states skewing their results. Democrats would likely need to build a greater coalition but they're still going to favor minority groups in densely populated regions, which would prevent, say, Native Americans, Hispanics in comparatively rural battleground states like Arizona, native Hawaiians, Inuits, Puerto Ricans, and scattered minority groups (like the few black families in predominantly lily-white suburbs) from mattering as much. In addition, a majoritarian national vote opens up the possibility for voter enthusiasm to dominate. This often favors progressive candidates like Obama in '08 and '12, but this year enthusiasm is on Trump's side. Say Donald Trump galvanizes disproportional enthusiasm, and therefore a larger total of votes, in deep red states like Oklahoma while lukewarm Hillary Clinton struggles to generate similar enthusiasm in deep blue states like California. If a significantly higher percentage of 'red state' voters vote this year because Trump's a more conventionally popular figure among his base, the Electoral College may actually prevent a Trump Presidency by ensuring that he's still stopped by states like California and New York even if turnout is comparatively low in California or New York. The founders envisioned this in their terminology as a way to prevent a regionally popular yet nationally distrusted ideologue from galvanizing his or her base sufficiently to override comparatively moderate, lukewarm, uninteresting competition by simply maximizing vote outreach among a core group while suppressing other constituencies. With the Electoral College system, such a tactic by an ideologue is less likely to work because, no matter how outrageously popular I may be in Colorado, I don't win unless I win lots of other states too. The idea in theory is that the Electoral College ensures that candidates actually have to make the effort to woo over every state, or at least build broader coalitions of disparate voting groups from many different states, and therefore those candidates need to address issues that would be irrelevant to the majority of Americans. In reality, the Electoral College is biased in favor of battleground states and deep red and blue states are tuned out. The idea in theory with a purely majority-vote national election is that everyone will have incentive to vote if their vote matters equally compared with everyone else regardless of where they live. And while that's true to a sufficient extent that I'd probably prefer a national majoritarian vote over our current system, the reality of the matter is that such an election simply shifts disenfranchisement. It's hard to envision an alternative that doesn't have any biases whatsoever, insofar as even a system where every vote counts equally from everywhere presents candidates with opportunities to maximize their chances by incorporating strategies that favor certain groups of voters over others.
__________________
WARNING: Snek's all up in this thread. Be prepared to read massive walls of text. Last edited by Solid Snake; 11-03-2016 at 09:32 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-04-2016, 07:07 AM
|
#345 |
|
Beard of Leadership
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 827
|
If we hybridized our current electoral college system with a runoff voting system, it could help to enfranchise third party voters and also encourage campaigns to pay more attention to deep red or blue states for fear of losing support in those states to third parties.
I'm also perplexed by the Clinton campaign's tactics this past week. Their main counter to the email story appears to have been concertedly attacking Comey and the FBI as partisan or incompetent. But no matter how true that may be, it looks petty and desperate. It's not very effective. I'm baffled as to why they haven't changed the subject with another oppo drop on Trump. Maybe they were waiting until after the World Series to avoid diluting the story? Or they wanted to wait until Hillary was at her low point in the polls to maximize the affect in the media? Not sure. But it's weird and worrying. If they're going to drop something, it seems like today is the last best day to do it. Crossing my fingers.
__________________
~Your robot reminds me of you. You tell it to stop, it turns. You tell it to turn, it stops. You tell it to take out the trash, it watches reruns of Firefly.~ |
|
|
|
|
11-04-2016, 12:03 PM
|
#346 | |
|
Sent to the cornfield
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: In the space between here and there.
Posts: 46
|
Dropping my two cents in here. Any of the media that actually matters(people still watch TV?) has been pushing Hillary out there and people have been lamenting said rise of 'Shillary', not that anyone is a huge fan of Trump either. Trump and Hillary are the 'Two Elder Evils'. Trump is Corporate Business Man and Hillary is Represented by Big Corporations anyway. This is the choice between Cthulhu or Hastur.
Either way, from down the grapevine, I've heard both have some pretty crappy pasts. Trump for shady business dealings and Hillary for covering up some allegedly evil things her former President husband has done. (This isn't mentioning Benghazi or the Watergate stuff either.) As for voting, it's the exact propagandic attitude of 'but it doesn't matter' that's the reason we get crappy elected officials. It's something that was woven into public opinion so certain people would get elected because they knew exactly what would happen if they could get people to believe it. It's not that complicated really. ---------- Post added at 01:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 PM ---------- Quote:
 Source Last edited by Dual Destiny; 11-04-2016 at 12:07 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-04-2016, 03:12 PM
|
#347 |
|
Fight Me, Nerds
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,470
|
And yet, here in Reality, the media pays lipservice to the existence of Trump AND Pence's multiple atrocities of abuse, assault, disgusting hate-fueled legislation then forgets they exist so they can talk about e-mails for another week.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
11-04-2016, 03:35 PM
|
#348 |
|
Derrrrrrrrrrrrrp.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The land of fartz and buttz
Posts: 8,266
|
I kind of like ranked-choice voting personally. But, any system of voting is prone to game theory exploits, so it's difficult if not impossible to find a completely open and honest method of elections.
__________________
boop |
|
|
|
|
11-04-2016, 05:11 PM
|
#349 | |
|
Erotic Esquire
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,563
|
Quote:
First: On Fox News of all places, Rudy Giuliani finally opened his big mouth one too many times and gave Dems some intel regarding the possibility that insurgent Trump supporters in the FBI tipped off the Trump campaign about the forthcoming bombshell Comey dropped, suggesting the FBI was indeed timing everything to rig the election Second: The DNC found evidence that it's been bugged, and ironically told the FBI about this under the assumption that the FBI would help, without realizing that the FBI was probably either the party responsible or at least actively rooting for the leaks themselves, because at the time everyone thought it was Russia, in a development so hysterical it's borderline infuriating that all this is happening to ensure a Trump Presidency ...Don't mind me, I'm just losing my mind here.
__________________
WARNING: Snek's all up in this thread. Be prepared to read massive walls of text. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-04-2016, 05:16 PM
|
#350 | ||
|
Sent to the cornfield
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: In the space between here and there.
Posts: 46
|
Quote:
As the tagline said for Aliens vs Predator ,"Whoever Wins, We Lose." Hate to say it. ---------- Post added at 06:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:14 PM ---------- Quote:
Anyway, I'm having doubts at this point in history that it'll have any real effect, but thats just me. Maybe I'm just optimistic. |
||
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
