Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!

[GenMarshall]

We do! Right here on this forum!

One of the really nice aspects of this forum, for me, is that we have articulate non-lefties who push back on the leftist consensus.

I attribute it in part to this being a gaming site rather than a political discussion site per se. More right-leaning posters can say to themselves (about the lefties) "you don't own Civ; I'm as big a fan as you; so you can't drive me out of this site with your hive-mind leftist political commentary."

I don't know if that's how the right-leaning posters actually think, but that's how I imagine them thinking.

I know one thing this site has over places like Reddit is that it’s not an entire leftist echo chamber. r/Politics is notorious for this where any post that shines favorable light to the right is removed and the redditor banned (if the bots didint banned the redditor for being subbed and participating in a subreddit they don’t like and find “problematic”).

The only redeeming qualities Reddit has is that I found a few subreddits that I found are good safe spaces for me (Like r/ReQuovery) that I find much more productive in me deradicalizing myself contrast to here where I’m treated like a harden criminal by other leftists on this board. Even then my experience here has left me hesitant to even post my stories in these safe spaces out of fear of being judged.

As for the driving out part, I’d suspect they left out of frustration. IIRC, I know Bishop/VRWC sort of left out of frustration. Not sure about MobBoss, though I suspect he left eather through boredom or frustrated dealing with liberals in OT.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

That's what elections are for.

That would work a little if the statement had been: The solution is for the country to care for the people who voted for the winning candidate and remove their problems.
But that would assume that in America there are 2 sets of problems which can be resolved.

Did you read what I replied to?

 

[Akka]

That would work a little if the statement had been: The solution is for the country to care for the people who voted for the winning candidate and remove their problems.
But that would assume that in America there are 2 sets of problems which can be resolved.

Did you read what I replied to?

I did. He said that a country is there to fix the problem of its own population first and foremost. You asked "which problems ?", I answered "that's what elections are for".
Basically, elections are (supposed) to put forward what people want (so which problems to fix), and from then on elected officials are supposed to fix these problems. And yes, sometimes they are conflicting, and that's also the point of elections, to balance what people want and find compromises and consensus.
And yeah, two-parties systems in an increasingly polarized context are becoming pretty inefficient at that.

 

[Gorbles]

It is once again amusing to read about the "leftist consensus" when posters who are significantly conservative on a number of issues consider themselves "sensibly progressive".

Supporting gay marriage is the legal minimum these days folks. It ain't progressive. You can't use it in a gotcha about countries in the Middle East if you're also applauding yourself for being so good for being on board with it.

The same thing goes for any other subject. The baseline moves, that's what progress is.

To be concerned about the rate of "progress" is once again a conservative reaction that is rarely applied as strongly to any other area of progress (computers, rocket science, medicine, etc).

To call someone's position conservative should not be construed as an insult. It's simply a description of a position on the left-to-right axis. If folks want to read into it, they're welcome to do so. Plenty of folks use "left" as an insult too. But I don't see the same tone-policing over that.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I did. He said that a country is there to fix the problem of its own population first and foremost. You asked "which problems ?", I answered "that's what elections are for".
Basically, elections are (supposed) to put forward what people want (so which problems to fix), and from then on elected officials are supposed to fix these problems. And yes, sometimes they are conflicting, and that's also the point of elections, to balance what people want and find compromises and consensus.
And yeah, two-parties systems in an increasingly polarized context are becoming pretty inefficient at that.

What he said was: " The solution is for the country to care for its own people and remove their problems.", not what you paraphrased.
My point was, there is no "the solution" since you cannot remove their problems since they have different problems (which require conflicting solutions)

I know how elections work. But after an election, there's no solution because the people will still have problems.
It's not an outlandish claim I think.

 

[Akka]

What he said was: " The solution is for the country to care for its own people and remove their problems.", not what you paraphrased.
My point was, there is no "the solution" since you cannot remove their problems since they have different problems (which require conflicting solutions)

I know how elections work. But after an election, there's no solution because the people will still have problems.
It's not an outlandish claim I think.

My point is that "the solution" is an ongoing and neverending process. There is no "that's it, we've fixed it" point, it's always and only about asking people "what do you want ?" and doing what they want. That's the fundamental concept of democracy.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

My point is that "the solution" is an ongoing and neverending process.

So you agree with me.

edit: And if done right, it should manifest as progress. (That's a big IF)

 

[Akka]

So you agree with me.

Maybe. You seemed to consider that it might have been satire.
If we both agree, then it means you also agree with PPQ_Purple (at least what I've understood of his opinion), and then why would you think he was satirical ?

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Tlaib massively outperformed in her district.

Where did you see this? This is her 3rd straight decline in vote share, and she has always been behind Conyers and Jones (pervious representatives) in vote share.

 

[Senethro]

Maybe. You seemed to consider that it might have been satire.
If we both agree, then it means you also agree with PPQ_Purple (at least what I've understood of his opinion), and then why would you think he was satirical ?

Maybe it was a second language writer/first language reader issue, but his phrasing looked very arch. By being extra precise in his ambiguity, he looks like he is trying to say something without saying it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Maybe. You seemed to consider that it might have been satire.
If we both agree, then it means you also agree with PPQ_Purple (at least what I've understood of his opinion), and then why would you think he was satirical ?

Because there is no: The solution, removal of problems, money wasted on other things.

edit: Mind you, I did ask for clarification while keeping the satire option open. If it's indeed phrasing we may well agree on intent.

 

[Farm Boy]

Impossible. President Vance will result in the lowest Presidential approval ratings seen in US history.

Let's hope he is both a clever ego manipulator and at least half the man Pence is.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Maybe. You seemed to consider that it might have been satire.
If we both agree, then it means you also agree with PPQ_Purple (at least what I've understood of his opinion), and then why would you think he was satirical ?

You understood me correctly. I too consider it to be a process rather than a simple click button fix the rhetorical problem.

I am just also very cynical about the people in power and thus feel they have a motivation to not solve it but act as if they are doing or going to do something to gain popularity. As that is easier than actually solving the incredibly complex problems of modern society. Basically lying that you will fix things and than making up excuses why you didn't and just need more time if you do win is easier than fixing things.

 

[Hygro]

Top successors include Tucker Carlson.
Future ones include Vance and Rogan if they aim for it. But I don't think either of them have it.

Tucker understands the game. It's about Daddy spanking his little 15 year old, and it's gonna hurt.

Governor material certainly, not presidential.

It's president or nothing. Why mire yourself at a halfway point? Because you're ashamed? Accept shame and you lose. Reject shame and you're Trump.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Tlaib massively outperformed in her district.

Ilhan Omar won too. So did AOC.

On a related note... I can't find the clip, but my wife told me that CNN had on a Latino guest a while back that swore up and down that Latino men were far too traditional and patriarchal to support a female POTUS candidate. He apparently said the Democrats only hope with Latino men was to run a "young energetic male". Again, I got this second hand and I can't find the clip, but if there is any truth to that, its kind of an ouchie for Democrats going forward.

MSNBC put up some stats showing that Harris got about 75% of the vote among Black men and IIRC 90% of the vote among Black women, 60% of the vote among Latina women and IIRC 45% of the vote among Latino men, which IIRC was about the same for White women, around 45% voted for Harris and about 40% of White men voted for Harris. Those last two numbers, White voters, surprised me a little, because I expected White men to be closer to 70% for Trump and I expected White women to be closer to 60% for Harris.

When it gets suggested to me that a more substantial factor in Harris losing was her race rather than gender, I remind folks that 1) Hillary lost too; and 2) Harris got more votes than Hillary.

Obviously Harris' loss can't be attributed to just one or two things and certainly not just to race and/or gender, but I do wonder to what extent these things play a factor. You could probably argue in hindsight, that Obama being Black actually helped him win in 2008.

Anyway... I'm rambling...

EDIT- I found an AP article on the subject:

How 5 key demographic groups voted in 2024: AP VoteCast​

https://apnews.com/article/election...black-voters-0f3fbda3362f3dcfe41aa6b858f22d12

 

[KaibaCorp]

Omar, AOC, Cruz - these are all more than politicians - they're famous names. Dems need to stop running 50 year political veterans - the electorate doesn't care about Bob Caseys.

 

[Joij21]

So who believes that Kamala being married to a Jew factored into her loss?

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

I don't think you need to worry about voters outrightly rejecting a woman candidate; I think you need to worry whether Harris herself was that candidate.

I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but Harris basically walked into this candidacy with little opposition. And it reminds me of a perception that I had, about how Hillary Clinton felt she was owed the presidency because her husband was and she was in the "game" for ~25 years at that point. And I do not believe that most voters like that...

Comparatively, Barack Obama was a black man when the political field at the time that only consisted of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and maybe some big-city mayor I'm unfamiliar with. So he naturally stood out and commanded attention.

 

[amadeus]

So who believes that Kamala being married to a Jew factored into her loss?

I don’t think so at all. Was he even in the spotlight at all? And he’s, forgive the language here, but not the stereotypical Jewish man.

 

[KaibaCorp]

So who believes that Kamala being married to a Jew factored into her loss?

I don't think any large portion of the electorate would even know that. Most of the votes trump got were prob just because their DoorDash is too expensive >:0