• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Discussion Trump voters have made a deal with Trump - so how do you win elections?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,624
1,872
126
WTF is the OP talking about?

Democrats won the election in 2018. The very THING that can be gerrymandered is in Democrat control. Ergo, if there is some negative impact to it all, it is negligible.
It’s another aimless hand wringing thread
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,233
472
126
It was under performing because the Republicans wanted it that way. Obama couldn't magically maneuver around the obstruction. They knew that poor economy = less support for party controlling presidency. The Republicans only care about consolidating power and the financial success of the elite.

Nonetheless, Obama's time wasn't that bad in regards to the deficit if we do a fair comparison.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095655768

cyclically adjusted budget deficit

A calculation of what the government's budget deficit would be if the economy was at a normal level of activity. This is achieved by assuming that the rules and rates concerning spending and taxes are unchanged. As taxes are an increasing and government spending is a decreasing function of national income, during a slump in activity the cyclically adjusted budget deficit will be smaller than the actual, and an actual deficit may correspond to a cyclically adjusted budget surplus. Such adjustments usually do not take account of the probable effect of changing national income on the interest costs of government debt, nor do they take account of the fact that if the budget deficit is itself a target for government policy, a change in activity rates may be accompanied by discretionary changes in government tax and spending policies.

You are also giving too much credit to Trump and not interpreting what happened reasonably. It's mainly a copy & paste Obama budget with more military spending and tax cuts largely to the top. That tax cut is blowing the deficit up despite the economy being much better than the early Obama years.

This is what you're calling great under Trump which is being done with trillion dollar deficits in a good economy. Two things to note: He already started with a good economy, and the trend was essentially the same (linear) as Obama years.

Nice chart, still waiting for a president to fix the one that really matters.

 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,657
13,735
136
Nice chart, still waiting for a president to fix the one that really matters.

Agreed. We've indulged insatiable greed at the top for nearly 40 years, and it shows. Rich GOP donors care only for themselves. And conservatives elected one of the greediest bastards on the planet because they believe he's on their side.

Please give a link because I can't read the fine print on my monitor.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,624
1,872
126
Did you forget Trans troops ban/ Muslim ban?
Those aren’t victories. SCOTUS kicked the trangender ban to the lower courts and could still ultimately rule against the ban. The travel ban went through an appropriate level of judicial review and revisions to meet the criteria of national security.
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,314
1,386
126
None of this conversation matters.
Even our highest court in the land could be made powerless and pointless if Donald Trump gets a second term.
If Trump gets his second term, nothing he has done during his first term will compare to the damage he will do during his second term.
All of the night sweats, the unimaginable, the seeming legally impossible and morally impossible will become America's new found reality should Donald Trump win a second term.
Trump will control every institution, every branch of government regardless of party control, will control the nations thought process, the freedom of speech, will control how we think, how we act, and how we react that is if allowed to react.
Donald Trump doesn't want to be just a simple dictator, Donald Trump wants to be the high almighty.
Always having the last say, always controlling the conversation, and always his decision as the only decision.
Sure.... originally republicans ultimate goal was ownership of the high court, but Donald Trump can not trust any court to consistently see things his way. Even a radical far-right winged court.
Sometime, even right wing radical is not the outcome Donald Trump desires or agrees with.
No, Donald seeks control going far beyond the uncertainties of any court.
Donald Trump seeks to control the final outcome in every instance regardless of any court.
Donald Trump wants to have the final say every single time and with every single issue.
So, the high court or any court doest matter, Not if Donald Trump has his way.
And a second Trump term will ensure exactly that.
The high court may offer their "opinion", but it is Donald Trump who will have the final say and give the final approval.
Probably with using twitter.

Botton line..... you ain't seen nothing yet.
And you cannot begin to imagine....
 

Stryke1983

Member
Jan 1, 2016
175
259
136
-


reducing regulations helped
- not a policy... much of what he said on the campaign trail was pro business ( especially manufacturing) and that created a sentiment that I feel helped boost the economy
- tax cuts ( even though you dont want to hear it) helped too

* economy was growing under Obama too .. but I feel was greatly under performing, considering he added as much to the debt as all other previous administrations combined
If the economy was underperforming under Obama and then boosted under Trump then why has the rate of economic growth not improved? It was already improving steadily under the previous administration, so if Trump has been more successful it should have accelerated dramatically over the last couple of years, right? Trump took out a vast loan to stimulate the economy but it didn't actually do anything. So now the national debt is higher and tax rates on the vast majority will be higher in the long run (as the tax cut was only temporary for 90% of us). The most positive thing you can say for Trump and the economy is that he hasn't had any major negative impact on it yet. He's fucked around with it in the short term and caused lots of instability, but I don't think most of it is structurally damaging yet.

I'm glad you posted now though. Imagine how bad you would have felt had you voted for Trump in 2020 thinking that he was good for economy, only to find out you were doing the opposite! At least now you have plenty of time to research the candidates in the Democratic primaries and choose the Dem candidate with the strongest economic platform so you have a say over which Democrat Presidential candidate you vote for in 2020.
 

DarthKyrie

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2016
1,385
1,035
146
If the economy was underperforming under Obama and then boosted under Trump then why has the rate of economic growth not improved? It was already improving steadily under the previous administration, so if Trump has been more successful it should have accelerated dramatically over the last couple of years, right? Trump took out a vast loan to stimulate the economy but it didn't actually do anything. So now the national debt is higher and tax rates on the vast majority will be higher in the long run (as the tax cut was only temporary for 90% of us). The most positive thing you can say for Trump and the economy is that he hasn't had any major negative impact on it yet. He's fucked around with it in the short term and caused lots of instability, but I don't think most of it is structurally damaging yet.

I'm glad you posted now though. Imagine how bad you would have felt had you voted for Trump in 2020 thinking that he was good for economy, only to find out you were doing the opposite! At least now you have plenty of time to research the candidates in the Democratic primaries and choose the Dem candidate with the strongest economic platform so you have a say over which Democrat Presidential candidate you vote for in 2020.
Technically he has fucked the agricultural portion of our economy by costing them their exports to China which they will never get back.
 

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
6,725
2,236
136
No, elections have consequences. Neither the Presidency nor the Senate is subject to partisan gerrymandering.
Seriously though he is just continuing the great GOP tradition of screwing us over because we pay Israel like 50 billion dollars per year and it pisses me off since that money could easily fund things that we need stateside like medicare and higher education for all but Americans are too fucking stupid to choose Medicare for all citizens and we'd rather keep giving it all away in tax cuts to the rich while the former middle class becomes the WORKING POOR.

You'd think he'd say America FIRST to them, stop our payments but nope! Ultimately you don't have to look far to see the influence that this group has, especially in US politics and policy.
 

Zorba

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 1999
8,460
2,336
136
No, elections have consequences. Neither the Presidency nor the Senate is subject to partisan gerrymandering.
As long as you ignore the fact the states themselves were gerrymandered for political power.

Oh and multiple states decide EC votes based on gerrymandered districts.

Let's not forget Democrats won the popular vote for the senate by 20 percentage points in 2018, but lost two seats. If that isn't gerrymandering and minority rule, I don't know what it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: umbrella39

DarthKyrie

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2016
1,385
1,035
146
As long as you ignore the fact the states themselves were gerrymandered for political power.

Oh and multiple states decide EC votes based on gerrymandered districts.

Let's not forget Democrats won the popular vote for the senate by 20 percentage points in 2018, but lost two seats. If that isn't gerrymandering and minority rule, I don't know what it.
I think we will see more and more states change their election laws to make their Electoral College Votes go to the winner of the national vote instead of the winner in that state.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,624
1,872
126
As long as you ignore the fact the states themselves were gerrymandered for political power.
Are you claiming the formation of the states themselves were a form of gerrymandering? The policital fault lines as they exist today are quite different from the Constitutional Convention.

Oh and multiple states decide EC votes based on gerrymandered districts.
And some don’t

!Let's not forget Democrats won the popular vote for the senate by 20 percentage points in 2018, but lost two seats. If that isn't gerrymandering and minority rule, I don't know what it.
That’s called self gerrymandering. You would have a case if the Democrats never controlled the Senate in our lifetimes, but they have and will again. Blame Harry Reid, not gerrymandering.
 

Zorba

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 1999
8,460
2,336
136
Are you claiming the formation of the states themselves were a form of gerrymandering? The policital fault lines as they exist today are quite different from the Constitutional Convention.
The vast majority of the states were admitted to the union after the constitutional convention, and most were affected by the desire of one political party to gain extra power. This is specifically why there is a North and South Dakota.

And some don’t
Some do, which was my point. There has also been a push by GOP ran states that generally vote for democrats at the presidential level to change their EC allocation to being based on their heavily gerrymandered congressional districts.

That’s called self gerrymandering. You would have a case if the Democrats never controlled the Senate in our lifetimes, but they have and will again. Blame Harry Reid, not gerrymandering.
How it is Harry Reid's fault that over the last three election cycles the democrats have gotten 25,000,000 more votes than republicans, but only have a minority in the chamber? It is a constitution gerrymander that make some people's vote worth far more than others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: umbrella39

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,624
1,872
126
The vast majority of the states were admitted to the union after the constitutional convention, and most were affected by the desire of one political party to gain extra power. This is specifically why there is a North and South Dakota.
This is irrelevant. The House reflects population centers. The Senate provides equal weighting to every state. California, despite its size, in its infancy was not a very populous state.


Some do, which was my point. There has also been a push by GOP ran states that generally vote for democrats at the presidential level to change their EC allocation to being based on their heavily gerrymandered congressional districts.
And there is a similar push to tip the scales towards a popular vote allocation, something the Founding Fathers architected against by design.

How it is Harry Reid's fault
His poor leadership set the stage

that over the last three election cycles the democrats have gotten 25,000,000 more votes than republicans, but only have a minority in the chamber? It is a constitution gerrymander that make some people's vote worth far more than others.
By design. I am not going to lament the Democrat’s inability to play the entire game board.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,656
10,712
136
No, elections have consequences. Neither the Presidency nor the Senate is subject to partisan gerrymandering.
Have you seen the charts in state after state democrats won the majority of the vote yet GOP maintained majority of seats? Clearly with Republicans rigging the vote, winning elections means nothing.

Republicans get power in states and move to disenfranchise minorities and people of color. And before you dismiss what I just said go back and read the numerous court cases where Republican were caught racially rigging voting rules. Republicans also trying to rig the census to keep white people in power. This is from the notes of the now dead Republican operative who hatched the plan.
https://www.salon.com/2019/06/07/gop-paid-millions-to-operative-who-pushed-census-question-aimed-to-help-whites/
 

IJTSSG

Golden Member
Aug 12, 2014
1,084
256
136
It's always hilarious to listen to the losers make excuses for why they continually lose.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY