SCOTUS Nomination II: I Like Beer

[hobbsyoyo]

Millennials were the only age group that saw increased participation in the 2016 election over 2012. The increase was relatively small, and probably comes down in significant part to millennials simply getting older and having more of a stake in voting, but it stood out compared to other age groups. The youngest cohorts of voters still have lower overall turnout than older ones, which is a concern, but they have always had lower turnout than older cohorts for a variety of reasons and framing this as a "millennial" problem is ahistorical.

There are a lot of groups that "did not turn out" in 2016. Some of them didn't turn out compared to the Obama years, like black Americans; some of them continued an earlier trend of rarely voting, like Hispanic Americans. People have found all manner of statistical scapegoats for the election's outcome, but most of the people who harp about Group X have some sort of an agenda. The reality is that Clinton won the popular vote by a lot, and that increased millennial turnout mostly would have continued to run up the score in places that would not have helped. Getting angry about the voting habits of people in states that Trump lost is silly under glorious first-past-the-post/winner-take-all. Getting angry about the Electoral College, one of the interrelated defects in American government that allows for the existence of undemocratic minority rule, makes a great deal more sense - as does getting angry about other forms of vote suppression and gerrymandering.

Fair points and well taken.

I do rail about the EC, gerrymandering and voter suppression all the time.

 

[Dachs]

Fair points and well taken.

I do rail about the EC, gerrymandering and voter suppression all the time.

Sure. I apologize for implying that you don't.

 

[metalhead]

I wonder how many of these Senators actually believe he committed sexual assaults and just don't care.

I don't think they care enough to have an opinion either way, because their constituents don't care.

We need moral clarity. The media won't give it to us, and the Democratic party seems unwilling to as well, but this is simple. The Republican party stands for the rights of the rapist over the rights of the victim. Their politicians proved that with their actions, and their supporters and voters have proven that with their words.

 

[innonimatu]

If I recall correctly they did not turn out in 2016 and cost Hillary the election. That's what I'm basing that off of. I would love to be wrong. This is also a midterm where the youth turnout is typically depressed as well which adds to my apprehension.

If the voters won't vote for your preferences, it's not their fault. It's yours in failing to persuade them. Hillary cost the election to herself. She offered nothing good for the future, reducing that election to a fight over personalities and negatives (evil Trump, or evil Hillary, vote against!). But she wasn't alone: Obama had run on "hope" and burned it already. What he did to healthcare there, or didn't do, will weight on his party for a long time. They can't admit it was bad, and can't present something good or be trusted with promising such, unless all the people advanced as candidates change. It'll take at least 10 years more for those two to lose their grip on the party and that to become possible.

Until then, enjoy Trump and the republicans. Or get another party going.

 

[onejayhawk]

I had hoped that 2016 was the lesson they only needed to learn once but I guess we'll see.

As far as I can see, they still have not figured 2016 out. Certainly, the more virulent anti-Republicans in this forum have not. Perhaps, they don't want to.

J

 

[innonimatu]

As far as I can see, they still have not figured 2016 out. Certainly, the more virulent anti-Republicans in this forum have not. Perhaps, they don't want to.

I get the enthusiast for the democrats. People swallowed the "party" (the interest groups represented by the party...) propaganda too easily. Ironically those they decry as ignorants or non-participants include the many who no longer believe such propaganda. From either side of the two "alternatives".

Mainstream media in the US is all conservative. If conservative is taken to mean conserving the current power relations and status of the different groups. It's just a matter of who gets the offices and the attached privileges (the pay, the influence and also the graft). With the media having chosen to serve the democrats as patrons because the "Trump the outsider" campaign did spook people and they all assumed it would be the democrat's turn soon anyway. You'll see a realignment of the media after the next election if (as I expect) the democrats lose again. A few people thrown under the bus and then business as usual...

I never did get the enthusiasm for the republicans, because there are so few here. Is it to a large degree a contrarian thing that arose during the Obama years?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

As far as I can see, they still have not figured 2016 out. Certainly, the more virulent anti-Republicans in this forum have not. Perhaps, they don't want to.

J

I really wish you would stop quoting snippets out of context and treating them as if the words mean the opposite of whatever they actually meant. It's the equivalent of I know you are but what am I? If I wanted to debate children I would volunteer at a headstart so knock it off.

If the voters won't vote for your preferences, it's not their fault. It's yours in failing to persuade them. Hillary cost the election to herself. She offered nothing good for the future, reducing that election to a fight over personalities and negatives (evil Trump, or evil Hillary, vote against!). But she wasn't alone: Obama had run on "hope" and burned it already. What he did to healthcare there, or didn't do, will weight on his party for a long time. They can't admit it was bad, and can't present something good or be trusted with promising such, unless all the people advanced as candidates change. It'll take at least 10 years more for those two to lose their grip on the party and that to become possible.

Until then, enjoy Trump and the republicans. Or get another party going.

Hillary won the election. Your entire argument is based on a false premise.

 

[onejayhawk]

I really wish you would stop quoting snippets out of context and treating them as if the words mean the opposite of whatever they actually meant. It's the equivalent of I know you are but what am I? If I wanted to debate children I would volunteer at a headstart so knock it off.

I do not quote a snippet and it is not out of context.

It is a child's debate tactic to accuse the opponent of what is true about themselves. There are psychological terms to describe this sort of transference but, since you bring it up, childish works.

Hillary won the election. Your entire argument is based on a false premise.

Many Democrats and most of the media do not understand why Trump was popular, much less why he won. Moreover, they do not seem to want to understand.

J

 

[sophie]

Hillary won the election. Your entire argument is based on a false premise.

She won the popular vote*

Your point still stands, but if you're going to use pedantry to pick apart someone's bad argument, it generally pays to be precise.

 

[metalhead]

Many Democrats and most of the media do not understand why Trump was popular, much less why he won.

You and a lot of other people are terrible. That's easy to understand. I don't know why you think this is hard.

He was never popular though. His approval and favorability numbers have always shown him not to be popular. Also, I don't know if you remember but he lost the popularity contest by about 3 million points.

 

[Bootstoots]

If I recall correctly they did not turn out in 2016 and cost Hillary the election. That's what I'm basing that off of. I would love to be wrong. This is also a midterm where the youth turnout is typically depressed as well which adds to my apprehension.

And I am a millenial, not that that excuses generation bashing or whatever. But that's not my intent, I'm just calling it like I see it.

Turnout among the 18-29 demographic actually increased slightly in 2016 vs 2012; all other ages saw a slight decrease. Granted the increase of 1.1% was nowhere near enough to offset the 6.1% drop from 2008 to 2012, and we're only talking about an increase from 45.0% to 46.1%.

But the young have always had the lowest turnout rates, and they've not really changed since the Census Bureau started tracking them 1980. The only election years where 18-29 turnout broke 50% were 1992 (52.0%) and 2008 (51.1%).

So while I agree that the young should be voting more, Millennials are no different in their voting behavior than the previous generations.

Edit: Dachs already said this. That's what I get for not reading the last page before posting.

 

[bernie14]

....Hillary won the election. Your entire argument is based on a false premise.

No she did not....sorta proves j's point..

 

[hobbsyoyo]

She won the popular vote*

Your point still stands, but if you're going to use pedantry to pick apart someone's bad argument, it generally pays to be precise.

True. But it's not as if we haven't spent the last 50 pages pointing out the intentional misuse of terms such as evidence. I have given up making nuanced arguments with inno and have fallen back on outright rejecting the legitimacy of Donald Trump's presidency and the electoral college when the subject comes up.

I'm happy to debate the merits of the EC and how it has fallen far short of its original intent with you and others. I just don't think it'll get anywhere with the crowd that has no problem with anything that's going on with respect to the rule of law in this country.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Many Democrats and most of the media do not understand why Trump was popular, much less why he won. Moreover, they do not seem to want to understand.

J

GOP shills continue to tell this great freaking lie that Trump is popular.

No matter how many flame wars their bald faced lying starts.

You make me sick.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No she did not....sorta proves j's point..

No, J's bald faced lying claim was that he is popular. Popular, coincidentally the same word used in "popular vote," which he lost by a huge margin.

 

[bernie14]

You and a lot of other people are terrible. That's easy to understand. I don't know why you think this is hard.

He was never popular though. His approval and favorability numbers have always shown him not to be popular. Also, I don't know if you remember but he lost the popularity contest by about 3 million points.

I question the judgement of someone who finds it easy to believe that about 50% of american voters are just terrible.

No, J's bald faced lying claim was that he is popular. Popular, coincidentally the same word used in "popular vote," which he lost by a huge margin.

Ok, i didnt take it that way, i took it as "popular enough to win the presidency"

EDIT: hey tim, i read your "five guys" go to dinner.... so the question would be if adams and jefferson were able to dine together, why not yiu and the j?...seems hes a good cook....or do you think he will feed you the cow patties?

 

[metalhead]

I question the judgement of someone who finds it easy to believe that about 50% of american voters are just terrible.

They sanctioned kids in cages and a president publicly mocking a sexual assault victim. Intentionally acted to make that happen. And it was very easily foreseeable at the time they did so. You can try to rationalize it, and you probably will, but those things are objectively terrible.

What kind of person votes for that?

 

[Zelig]

No, J's bald faced lying claim was that he is popular. Popular, coincidentally the same word used in "popular vote," which he lost by a huge margin.

I mean, it's really quite incredible that he manages anything north of low single-digit approval ratings.

It's not hard to understand though.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

EDIT: hey tim, i read your "five guys" go to dinner.... so the question would be if adams and jefferson were able to dine together, why not yiu and the j?...seems hes a good cook....or do you think he will feed you the cow patties?

Because Adams and Jefferson were committed to the democratic process. J and his ilk are not.

Remember, the five guys are following the basic tenets of democracy. The ones who find themselves temporarily in the minority make an effort to ensure that the path chosen by the majority works out as best for all as it can. McConnell in 2008 declared the GOP to be no longer committed to democracy. When the GOP became the nominal majority they continued the violation by basing their leadership in "this may not be great, but at least it will make the minority's heads explode."

So, J represents the anathema of the five guys; the abandonment of the democratic process. Being someone who recognizes that and understands the consequences, I am someone J would never associate with other than anonymously.

 

[Broken_Erika]

I question the judgement of someone who finds it easy to believe that about 50% of american voters are just terrible.

Hard to put a number on it 'cause you'd have to separate those who believe in him and those who just don't care 'cause it doesn't affect them and those who just want to see the federal government and/or the 2 main parties collapse and know that Trump is the best man for that job.