The 2016 US General Election

[GVChamp]

the point which you're missing is that Russia/Putin have either been broadly popular or broadly unpopular. it hasn't been a partisan issue...until now.

and even if we only look at the original conclusions of the US intel agencies-- that Putin ordered hacks to disrupt the US elections in general-- it's a damned odd time for Republicans to suddenly start liking him more.

There are no public conclusions from intelligence agencies. There are various leaks coming out.

That aside, that there is a partisan disconnect in how much the two parties like/dislike Russia is not really anything to get up in arms about when Republicans still dislike Russia. It's not like we're talking about a nascent fifth column.


It's also not the only nation where the parties disagree:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/189626/am...-positive.aspx

Gallup finds a 31-percentage-point difference in sympathy for Israel between Protestants (72%) and nonreligious Americans (41%), and a 26-point difference between Republicans (79%) and Democrats (53%).

As Gallup has reported in the past, the partisan gap in Americans' support for Israel has widened over the past decade and a half as Republicans warmed toward Israel during George W. Bush's administration. This likely stems from the Bush administration's close relationship to that country as well as post-9/11 attitudes about terrorism and the Arab world. Meanwhile, Democrats' sympathies with Israel also grew during this period, just not as much

[JAD_333]

JAD,

hmm, my reading of the piece is that he identifies the problem as being far more than just Trump:

Note the word I used, "role". That suggests a cast of characters. We probably agree on that much.

I do agree he's being rather dramatic about it, because comparatively we are still more free than we were in the 1960s. there ARE disturbing trends but these are the trends of the last 10-15 years, and not decades.

for instance, i don't think it's an accident that we've had a situation where twice now in less than two decades we've had a difference between the popular vote and an electoral one. the growing rural-urban divide, which i think is driven far more by cultural disagreements and not so much economic ones (sorry Bernie).

This notion that something is amiss because the popular vote did not match up with the Electoral College vote ignores political reality. The Constitution sets out how presidents will be chosen, and that,like it or not, is the way it has to be. Thus, campaigns gear themselves to capture the most electoral votes. They run polls to determine which states are swing states, i.e, can go either way--and focus their resources on those states.

But if we were to choose our presidents by popular vote, campaigns would take a completely different approach; they would focus mostly on the most populous regions, which are found along the east and west coasts of the country, as well as portions of the Gulf coast from the Florida panhandle all the way to Houston. I would also include interior cities with populations of half-million and up.

[Chunder]

This notion that something is amiss because the popular vote did not match up with the Electoral College vote ignores political reality

Id go one further and say given the absolute plethora on elections across the world and their various methods of dealing with the tyranny of political entrenchment it borders on the wilfully ignorant. The Electoral college didn't just spring up overnight. It's there to balance, a side effect just so happened to protect against the inherent cultural suffocation and demonisation openly witnessed by all. The polls got it wrong because millions of Americans who feared victimization from the left kept silent on social media whilst the rest engaged in virtue signalling. They told pollsters one thing and did another at the ballot box. The central groupthink and conservative suppression evidenced in economic cultural centres was laid bare. You won't get it from an from the college intelligentsia because they aren't that smart. Infact you had an absolutely amazing outcome that affirmed without doubt the value of the Electoral college. It really is amazing that this actually isn't being examined , really just affirming how in bed with indoctrination the papers have become.

[InExile]

The Electoral College is really a bulwark against the possibility that a candidate is truly unfit to serve as president. If it were to come to light after the election that the winning candidate was, for example, a massive tax cheat, a murderer, insane, in cahoots with a voting fraud scheme, etc, the states could pass emergency legislation unbinding their electors so they could vote for the runner up, which would be the unfit candidate's running mate. This one feature of the Electoral College is why many political scientists oppose the popular vote.

I do think that Trump is truly unfit to serve as President. And somewhat humorously, Trump has been accused of by the left (and even some on the right) of some of the things on your list, massive tax cheating, insanity, cahoots with Russian voting fraud.

Ofcourse, I am not saying Trump is guilty of these things literally, but he did say and do enough disturbing stuff that should have convinced a majority of people that he was unfit for office. By some polls, a majority of Americans did hold that opinion in the end, but many of those people ended up voting for him anyways.

So, yes, the electoral college could not have stopped his presidency given that almost half of Americans voted for him, even though his flaws were well known long before election day.

[astralis]

JAD,

This notion that something is amiss because the popular vote did not match up with the Electoral College vote ignores political reality. The Constitution sets out how presidents will be chosen, and that,like it or not, is the way it has to be. Thus, campaigns gear themselves to capture the most electoral votes. They run polls to determine which states are swing states, i.e, can go either way--and focus their resources on those states.

the issue goes beyond this election and current "political reality", of course. as i said, yes, right now Democrats are screeching like a kid with a skinned knee-- but if the medium-term demographic change holds, then within 3-4 Presidential election cycles (and that is being pessimistic)-- it will be Republicans screaming about mismatching, that is, if they're not already getting walloped in both popular/electoral votes.

similarly, if rural/WWC voters feel like they're at a disadvantage -now-, they're going to be in for an unpleasant next 10-20 years as the wealth/demographic imbalance continues to tilt even more heavily to the coastal cities.

given factors as diverse as gerrymandering, selective news sourcing, a relatively free flow of private monies into electioneering, our current system heavily incentivizes conflict over cooperation. these factors will worsen over time unless steps are taken, and that will be true regardless of which party is in power.

[astralis]

GVChamp,

It's also not the only nation where the parties disagree:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/189626/am...-positive.aspx

your Israel example is more concerning to the -Israelis-, less so for Americans.

given how Russia is the only Power that is interfering with any degree of success in an US election, that should make the partisan difference more concerning for us.

[JAD_333]

I do think that Trump is truly unfit to serve as President. And somewhat humorously, Trump has been accused of by the left (and even some on the right) of some of the things on your list, massive tax cheating, insanity, cahoots with Russian voting fraud.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on where one stands concerning Trump's fitness for office, suspicions aren't enough to disqualify him. So far, there is no hard evidence of tax evasion nor does his unusual style of behavior meet the test for legal insanity. His sweet spot for Russia can be interpreted in many ways. Putin is not ready to bank on it.

From here on, impeachment is the only way to remove him from office. Lawrence Tribe, a well known Constitutional expert says he may be in violation his oath of office on day 1.

Read: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...auguration-day

[bfng3569]

Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on where one stands concerning Trump's fitness for office, suspicions aren't enough to disqualify him. So far, there is no hard evidence of tax evasion nor does his unusual style of behavior meet the test for legal insanity. His sweet spot for Russia can be interpreted in many ways. Putin is not ready to bank on it.

From here on, impeachment is the only way to remove him from office. Lawrence Tribe, a well known Constitutional expert says he may be in violation his oath of office on day 1.

Read: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...auguration-day

If 'suspicions' were enough bill and Hilary wkloyld have been sharing a cell a while ago...

[tbm3fan]

I do think that Trump is truly unfit to serve as President. And somewhat humorously, Trump has been accused of by the left (and even some on the right) of some of the things on your list, massive tax cheating, insanity, cahoots with Russian voting fraud.

Well let's put it this way about his taxes. He obviously has something he wants to hide. Could be cheating but one would think the IRS would come down on that and we would hear. Or, more likely, he either wants to hide his true wealth as it could be less than he boasts. He may also want to hide all his interests around the world from prying eyes. These interests, if that is the case, are what Tribe is talking about. Just yesterday Kuwait decided to have their party of some sort at the Trump owned hotel in DC that he has been told to sell his interest. Of course there has been a lot of song and dance about how this had nothing to do with who Trump is. Nonetheless, a good example of his extensive interests and the conflicts they can cause.

[Doktor]

Well let's put it this way about his taxes. He obviously has something he wants to hide. Could be cheating but one would think the IRS would come down on that and we would hear. Or, more likely, he either wants to hide his true wealth as it could be less than he boasts. He may also want to hide all his interests around the world from prying eyes. These interests, if that is the case, are what Tribe is talking about. Just yesterday Kuwait decided to have their party of some sort at the Trump owned hotel in DC that he has been told to sell his interest. Of course there has been a lot of song and dance about how this had nothing to do with who Trump is. Nonetheless, a good example of his extensive interests and the conflicts they can cause.

What happened with Obama's birth certificate and college grades?

[DOR]

So, yes, the electoral college could not have stopped his presidency given that almost half of Americans voted for him, even though his flaws were well known long before election day.

Almost half?
More like less than 20%.
Second best result of the year.

[Doktor]

Guys, weren't the Chinese who were stealing, pardon hacking, personal files of every American ever working for the administration? IIRC, they were also blamed for hacking and stealing top secret projects ... That's at the same time or after Assange and Snowden.

One has to wonder if US has cyber security at all.

Also, where are the files that have data how to make Americans vote certain person?

[JAD_333]

JAD,



the issue goes beyond this election and current "political reality", of course. as i said, yes, right now Democrats are screeching like a kid with a skinned knee-- but if the medium-term demographic change holds, then within 3-4 Presidential election cycles (and that is being pessimistic)-- it will be Republicans screaming about mismatching, that is, if they're not already getting walloped in both popular/electoral votes.

Asty:

By 'medium-term demographic' may I assume you mean the continued increase in the Hispanic population (and other ethnic groups). If so, the dems have some hurdles to get over. First, the majority of Hispanics would have to affiliate with the Democratic party. Second, the party would have to retain its traditional base (no significant defections to the right). And third, the Republican party's current hold on the White House and the Congress would have to yield poor economic results.

Whether or not all 3 conditions materialize over the next 4-8 years will depend on the state of the economy. Not that other issues won't matter, but assume for the moment that international relations are no worse off than they are today, and there have been no major military conflicts, why would Hispanics flock to the Democratic party?

As for the Democratic base, why would it hold together if the economic situation improves in the intervening years. What could the dem leadership offer them?

That is not to say a Democrat can't still win the White House even as the flow continues rightward. The GOP did it periodically after the progressive movement began with FDR in the 1930s; yet, despite those interludes, the progressive movement kept its momentum intact. Even now I'm not altogether certain it has lost it, but it seems so. We'll see.

[JAD_333]

Well let's put it this way about his taxes. He obviously has something he wants to hide. Could be cheating but one would think the IRS would come down on that and we would hear. Or, more likely, he either wants to hide his true wealth as it could be less than he boasts. He may also want to hide all his interests around the world from prying eyes. These interests, if that is the case, are what Tribe is talking about. Just yesterday Kuwait decided to have their party of some sort at the Trump owned hotel in DC that he has been told to sell his interest. Of course there has been a lot of song and dance about how this had nothing to do with who Trump is. Nonetheless, a good example of his extensive interests and the conflicts they can cause.

A couple of good speculations. The one about Trump not wanting his competitors to know his business rates high. One you may have thought of but didn't mention is that Trump is just plain ornery and doesn't want to jump through the PC hoops.

[GVChamp]

GVChamp,



your Israel example is more concerning to the -Israelis-, less so for Americans.

given how Russia is the only Power that is interfering with any degree of success in an US election, that should make the partisan difference more concerning for us.

The concern for us should be that Americans were moronic enough to think Putin was a good guy. We now have had 3 Presidents in a row who thought they could play savior with Russia. Trump at least just doesn't give a damn about Russia and thinks we can make some sort of accommodation (which is also stupid but in its own way).

I certainly don't think a current partisan difference is in any way an indication that the Republic is in danger, compared to the things that Americans themselves will tolerate in the name of "safety" and "freedom." Obama has killed more Americans with drone strikes than Putin has.