Will Democrats Learn Or Are We Doomed to Keep Repeating Partisan Tradeoff Elections?

[mect]

Great. When you’re done with your fool’s errand, you can focus on the recommendations Maher actually made, which echo sentiments expressed by Congressional Democrats.

So your argument is democrats lost, so they need to follow Maher's recommendations, which is what congressional democrats were already doing, which is why democrats lost. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

 

[Vic]

The plain truth is Evangelical Christianity was what founded this nation, and all its guiding principals. It is the one true way and everything else by definition is the cult.

Yep.. conservatives definitely don't do identity politics..

/s

 

[Starbuck1975]

So your argument is democrats lost, so they need to follow Maher's recommendations, which is what congressional democrats were already doing, which is why democrats lost. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Cool story

 

[Starbuck1975]

"Use Common Sense" - There is no such thing as common sense. The thing people call 'common sense' is more often wrong than right. Common sense tells us that the sun orbits the earth, that a bowling ball falls faster than a feather. Saying 'use common since' is a useless statement, because few people can even agree on what is a common sense approach to a problem in the first place.

Sure there is. Maher provided political context to common sense and I happen to agree with him.

"Don't pander to twitter as if it represents the electorate." - It does represent a part of the electorate. Twitter is made up of people. For every tweet out there there is someone that wrote it. Those are at least part of the electorate, and based on the last 4 years and what Trump has managed to do, it is a damn important part of it. What Mahar is really saying is 'I don't understand this new technology, what happened to just writing things in newspapers?' He, and perhaps you, think this is about Twitter. It is not. It is about fringe groups getting a bullhorn to yell with. But guess what, Twitter only works if people follow those fringe elements. It is quite apparent that people are following them, that is how they get amplified. Once amplified politicians have to address them.

Social media is a bullhorn that amplifies the loudest but also the worst voices, and there is an entertainment aspect to it, reasonable voices do not receive a following on social media, its all about confirmation bias and the sick burn.

"Town down the virtue signaling rhetoric" - Well, this is a problem. Specifically in that literally any stance someone takes someone else will accuse them of virtue signaling over it. Why is having virtue so wrong these days anyway? Really stop and think about what this is saying. It is like we despise people for having morals or ethics. So, Maher's big advise is don't talk about being moral or ethical, try to downplay the fact that you are not scum.

When done disingenuously, opportunistically or with a herd mentality, it absolutely is a bad thing

Maher's entire bit is a empty feel good piece that is meant to make you nod your head but not use it.

His perspective has an audience.

The headlines are written by those looking for controversy. Flashy headlines sell papers. It has pretty much always been this way. Those looking for find controversy will always find it.

and every story needs a villain

 

[Vic]

So your argument is democrats lost, so they need to follow Maher's recommendations, which is what congressional democrats were already doing, which is why democrats lost. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

The reason why Starbuck scolds Democrats not to pander to twitter is so that he can simultaneously straw man all Dems as being like the most vocal ones on twitter (which is clearly not the case) while ignoring the obvious fact that the Republican party is being led from twitter.

 

[MrSquished]

It doesn't even matter. Even a shallow dive into RW Twitter and you will see the reality they have concocted for themselves, where the election was stolen and every guardrail designed to prevent a hostile takeover is just part of the "swamp." And I can't recall the number of times I saw "civil war" mentioned. And Parler is #1 on google play and the apple store, so this reality will perpetuate forever.

It's pretty clear that the US as it currently is will cease to exist in the next 10-20 years. More and more polls coming out showing large swaths of Republicans believing the election was rigged or stolen.

The question is, are we looking at an upcoming war, dissolution of the Union, or the GOP using this as a test run to actually overturn any and all future elections. Or some combination of the above?

We. Are. Done. Who knew that America's downfall would be a multi-bankrupt casino owner. I guess looking back at our crazy history, it's an American story as any.

I do think this country is going on the major decline. A vast majority of Trump voters believe this election was stolen, Joe Biden is a radical socalist pedophile, and even the ones saved by Medicaid expansion and other state efforts think government programs are evil. These people are civically and politically unreachable. It's too big a chunk to overcome. A functioning democracy needs a far larger percentage of its population to be at least somewhat informed, not straight up delusional. This decline will happen faster than we thought possible.

 

[ondma]

Lol, it never stops being funny to me how you’re telling Democrats to enjoy losing right after an election they won.

"Won" depends on how you look at it. They managed to beat Trump, but lost House seats and underperformed in Senate races. So I view it as a repudiation of Trump more than a sweeping victory for the Democrats. The degree of "victory" is actually very dependent on the Senate runoff in Georgia. If the Dems can take both seats and get a majority in Senate, they have accomplished what they needed to, although in less than spectacular fashion. Otherwise, it is somewhat of a pyrrhic victory, because very little will be accomplished other than what Biden can do by executive order.

Edit: I believe they also underperformed in gubernatorial races.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Sure there is. Maher provided political context to common sense and I happen to agree with him.

No there isn't. See, we can't even agree if common sense exists. How are people to agree on what it supposedly tells them? Common sense is the idea that people have a magical ability to know the right answer through 'gut instinct' or folk wisdom, and it is a fairy tale.

Social media is a bullhorn that amplifies the loudest but also the worst voices, and there is an entertainment aspect to it, reasonable voices do not receive a following on social media, its all about confirmation bias and the sick burn.

Just like the news.

When done disingenuously, opportunistically or with a herd mentality, it absolutely is a bad thing

Why? It seems to work. Look at Trump.

His perspective has an audience.

Of course it does. Most people want to be entertained, not educated.
That is what he does, he entertains, not educates.

and every story needs a villain

Indeed.

 

[fskimospy]

"Won" depends on how you look at it. They managed to beat Trump, but lost House seats and underperformed in Senate races. So I view it as a repudiation of Trump more than a sweeping victory for the Democrats. The degree of "victory" is actually very dependent on the Senate runoff in Georgia. If the Dems can take both seats and get a majority in Senate, they have accomplished what they needed to, although in less than spectacular fashion. Otherwise, it is somewhat of a pyrrhic victory, because very little will be accomplished other than what Biden can do by executive order.

Edit: I believe they also underperformed in gubernatorial races.

The presidency is by far... by FAR the biggest prize and they won that. They also got the most votes in House races and when the votes are done being counted, probably the Senate ones too.

If you want to say they lost because they beat Republicans by a smaller margin in the House than they beat them in 2018's historic wave that's true, but treating a situation where they got the most votes AND achieved a legislative majority as a loss because that majority is smaller seems kind of wrong. They won, just not by as large an amount as they won the last time.

This is again the issue I keep mentioning. To 'win' Democrats don't just need to get the most votes, they need gigantic wave elections over and over and over again. This is a dumb way to run a country.

 

[fskimospy]

No there isn't. See, we can't even agree if common sense exists. How are people to agree on what it supposedly tells them? Common sense is the idea that people have a magical ability to know the right answer through 'gut instinct' or folk wisdom, and it is a fairy tale.


Just like the news.


Why? It seems to work. Look at Trump.


Of course it does. Most people want to be entertained, not educated.
That is what he does, he entertains, not educates.


Indeed.

Yeah, can you even count how many times people say something is 'common sense' and not only does it turn out to be wrong, but ludicrously so?

 

[ondma]

I do think this country is going on the major decline. A vast majority of Trump voters believe this election was stolen, Joe Biden is a radical socalist pedophile, and even the ones saved by Medicaid expansion and other state efforts think government programs are evil. These people are civically and politically unreachable. It's too big a chunk to overcome. A functioning democracy needs a far larger percentage of its population to be at least somewhat informed, not straight up delusional. This decline will happen faster than we thought possible.

I think you are overstating things a bit, but I agree the situation is extremely troubling. The latest numbers I have seen showed that about half (not an overwhelming majority) of republicans believe the election was rigged. I also think the "fear" of Biden is not so much about his policies, as the idea that he is going to cave to the liberal wing of the party.

I am also very concerned about the 2022 midterms (party in power traditionally does poorly in the mid-terms, and they already underperformed in the down ballot races just completed) and the next presidential race, as Harris will almost certainly be the nominee.

 

[fskimospy]

I think you are overstating things a bit, but I agree the situation is extremely troubling. The latest numbers I have seen showed that about half (not an overwhelming majority) of republicans believe the election was rigged. I also think the "fear" of Biden is not so much about his policies, as the idea that he is going to cave to the liberal wing of the party.

I am also very concerned about the 2022 midterms (party in power traditionally does poorly in the mid-terms, and they already underperformed in the down ballot races just completed) and the next presidential race, as Harris will almost certainly be the nominee.

Here are a couple reasons to feel more hopeful:

1) It looks like a vaccine will be generally available in ~April. Assuming that happens we should have a rapid economic rebound, one that Biden can take credit for (no matter how undeserved!). There's going to be a ton of economic slack to make up so it's reasonable to think that the expansion will be both big and will carry through November 2022 or even longer. If that happens that's probably going to help Democrats a lot.

2) I'm not convinced that without Trump that low propensity Republicans maintain the same enthusiasm.

 

[ondma]

The presidency is by far... by FAR the biggest prize and they won that. They also got the most votes in House races and when the votes are done being counted, probably the Senate ones too.

If you want to say they lost because they beat Republicans by a smaller margin in the House than they beat them in 2018's historic wave that's true, but treating a situation where they got the most votes AND achieved a legislative majority as a loss because that majority is smaller seems kind of wrong. They won, just not by as large an amount as they won the last time.

This is again the issue I keep mentioning. To 'win' Democrats don't just need to get the most votes, they need gigantic wave elections over and over and over again. This is a dumb way to run a country.

I am not sure what you mean by "they got the most votes in House races", but the point is, they lost seats in an election for which their party won the presidency, and failed to win the number of Senate seats they were expected to.

 

[fskimospy]

I am not sure what you mean by "they got the most votes in House races", but the point is, they lost seats in an election for which their party won the presidency, and failed to win the number of Senate seats they were expected to.

I mean the number of votes for Democratic candidates exceeded the number of votes for Republican candidates.

As for losing seats, yes. This is because 2018 was a historic blowout and 2020 was a more regular win. The only way Democrats could not have 'lost' in your scenario is if they scored another historic blowout (and continued those blowouts indefinitely in the future).

To equate it to sports scores if I beat you by 8 runs in a game and then in the next game I beat you by 5 runs would you consider that second game a win or a loss for me? I think noting that the margin declined is important and relevant, but calling an election where you get the most votes and the most seats a loss is silliness.

 

[sao123]

Evangelical Christianity is younger than America, and yes, it IS now a cult.
Exhibit A: Your crazy self

TBF, it was always a cult. Dunno if that makes you feel any better.

You are confusing Martin Luther with John Wesley.
Wesley started Evangelicalism. Luther improved it.

 

[fskimospy]

Also as Nate Silver just mentioned comparing off-year results to presidential results is problematic as well.

As a more apples to apples comparison Democrats gained seats relative to 2016.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Wasn't there a civil war within those 200 fine years? To say things were fine for 200 years is monic. According to you I guess the Dems were responsible for the industrial revolution. Just because Dems are in favor of science and technology doesn't mean those things have a political bias.

You are a partisan hack. You constantly attack the Dems but never the Republicans? Why is that?

I'm the least partisan person here. I've stated multiple times that the Republican party is in shambles and is filled with fucking retards. I didn't vote for their POTUS twice now. What do you want? Again, your partisanship is showing because you force me to declare things that have zero relevance to the topic.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm the least partisan person here. I've stated multiple times that the Republican party is in shambles and is filled with fucking retards. I didn't vote for their POTUS twice now. What do you want? Again, your partisanship is showing because you force me to declare things that have zero relevance to the topic.

So then in your non-partisan, fact based opinion can you explain the following:

1) Why the electoral college is good.
2) Why gerrymandering house districts is good.
3) Why Wyoming having the same number of senators as California is good.

Thanks in advance!

 

[ondma]

I mean the number of votes for Democratic candidates exceeded the number of votes for Republican candidates.

As for losing seats, yes. This is because 2018 was a historic blowout and 2020 was a more regular win. The only way Democrats could not have 'lost' in your scenario is if they scored another historic blowout (and continued those blowouts indefinitely in the future).

To equate it to sports scores if I beat you by 8 runs in a game and then in the next game I beat you by 5 runs would you consider that second game a win or a loss for me? I think noting that the margin declined is important and relevant, but calling an election where you get the most votes and the most seats a loss is silliness.

I didnt say it was a loss, more like avoiding a complete disaster. Like I said, a lot still depends on the runoffs in Georgia.

To use a different sports analogy, more like winning by a field goal when you should have won by 2 touchdowns, and knowing you have to play the same team again in 2 and 4 years.

 

[ondma]

I'm the least partisan person here. I've stated multiple times that the Republican party is in shambles and is filled with fucking retards. I didn't vote for their POTUS twice now. What do you want? Again, your partisanship is showing because you force me to declare things that have zero relevance to the topic.

Kind of like Trump was the least racist person in the room at the last debate???

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I don't think a single candidate who had endorsed m4a lost, including in swing districts, and nobody ran on defunding the police either (which I think is the dumbest slogan ever) and I doubt any of those candidates said LatinX either.

Yeah, I mean... definitely not.

It definitely...



Just doesn't



Exist.... (as all 10 candidates raised their hand to say that they support free healthcare for illegal immigrants - which doesn't exist ANYWHERE in developed world)




Face facts chump - they pander to political correctness - ALL the time. And this is just from the presidential candidates that I picked up and found 30 seconds ago. Now think of all the pandering done from all the local elections.

Again, just because you're blindly and moronically ignorant - doesn't mean it isn't happening right in front of you.

 

[fskimospy]

I didnt say it was a loss, more like avoiding a complete disaster. Like I said, a lot still depends on the runoffs in Georgia.

To use a different sports analogy, more like winning by a field goal when you should have won by 2 touchdowns, and knowing you have to play the same team again in 2 and 4 years.

I mean you put "won" in scare quotes, which implies you didn't think they won. Regardless, that sounds like a team not covering the spread - the spread being an artificial construct to make things competitive that would otherwise not be.

I wonder how that applies to our current situation, haha.

 

[MrSquished]

Yeah, I mean... definitely not.

It definitely...
View attachment 34112


Just doesn't
View attachment 34113


Exist.... (as all 10 candidates raised their hand to say that they support free healthcare for illegal immigrants - which doesn't exist ANYWHERE in developed world)
View attachment 34115



Face facts chump - they pander to political correctness - ALL the time. And this is just from the presidential candidates that I picked up and found 30 seconds ago. Now think of all the pandering done from all the local elections.

Again, just because you're blindly and moronically ignorant - doesn't mean it isn't happening right in front of you.

You can't even read what I wrote. Nobody that endorsed M4A lost their seat and not just in safe D districts, but swing districts. Nobody ran for the House or Senate on defunding the police that I have seen - I have seen multiple people say defunding the police was a terrible slogan from some left wing activists, and I have agreed with that statement very strongly - but nobody ran on that that I can find. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

 

[ewdotson]

You are confusing Martin Luther with John Wesley.
Wesley started Evangelicalism. Luther improved it.

Are ... are you confusing Martin Luther with Martin Luther King Jr? Because Luther predates Wesley by a couple of centuries.

Also no one is suggesting that MLK Jr. started Evangelicalism, if that is what you were *trying* to say.

 

[nakedfrog]

You are confusing Martin Luther with John Wesley.
Wesley started Evangelicalism. Luther improved it.

The only improvement it could make is to disappear and be replaced by moderate Christianity that actually follows the ideals of Christ.