[RD] The Obama Legacy

[rah]

Time alone will tell which party is burning.

Weird, before the election the dems were claiming that the Repub party was burning, and where shocked that they were wrong about it. Unless they make some changes, I don't see anything different in the future. Waiting for the Repubs to self destruct isn't the best strategy. (unless it's their only one)

 

[onejayhawk]

Weird, before the election the dems were claiming that the Repub party was burning, and where shocked that they were wrong about it. Unless they make some changes, I don't see anything different in the future. Waiting for the Repubs to self destruct isn't the best strategy. (unless it's their only one)

I agree. That ship has already come in. Yet there is posturing as if the Democrats did not get clocked nationwide.

J

 

[rah]

I think some of that has to do with clustering. Here in Chicago, the Dems did win handily and it confuses them that they didn't nationwide. They just don't seem to realize that the rest of the country isn't Chicago.

 

[onejayhawk]

That is not surprising. Trump won 2622 counties to 490 for Clinton, yet Clinton won the popular vote by almost 2.5 million. That speaks of an extreme urban bias to the numbers. For example, take this chart.

Counties with Largest Vote Swing
Republican
Wayne, MI 91,581
Suffolk, NY 68,668
Macomb, MI 64,451
Ocean, NJ 47,754
Cuyahoga, OH 42,553
Erie, NY 40,528
Genesee, MI 38,594
Pasco, FL 37,795
New Haven, CT 34,073
Luzerne, PA 32,219

Democratic
Los Angeles, CA 363,051
Orange, CA 172,705
San Diego, CA 167,479
Cook, IL 165,664
Harris, TX 160,988
Salt Lake, UT 115,484
King, WA 109,679
Maricopa, AZ 103,143
New York, NY 100,969
Middlesex, MA 96,084

Notice how the big Democrat swings are all in major cities, while the largest Trump swings are much more rural.

J

 

[rah]

Not sure what you're showing but in Cook County IL, Hillary won 1,611,946 to Trump's 453,287

 

[Commodore]

No wonder city people feel slighted. The rest of the country ganged up on them.

And that's how democracy is supposed to work. A simple popular vote system is simply not democratic at all. If we did have a popular vote system the 490 counties Clinton won would essentially be able to dictate policy and impose their will on the other 2622 counties. In what universe could anyone consider that democratic?

 

[AdrienIer]

There are two views as to what constitutes a democracy. Either it's "a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body", in which case the american system is democratic but so are the direct, popular vote systems, or you define it as the "rule of the majority", in which case a popular vote system is the very definition of democratic, and the current american system is not democratic at all.

If 90% of people lived in the biggest cities a candidate could win 80% of the votes by winning just a handful of counties. I think a candidate with 80% of the vote should win in any system, but you seem to disagree

 

[Traitorfish]

And that's how democracy is supposed to work. A simple popular vote system is simply not democratic at all. If we did have a popular vote system the 490 counties Clinton won would essentially be able to dictate policy and impose their will on the other 2622 counties. In what universe could anyone consider that democratic?

The fact you're comparing 490 unfavourably to 2622 suggests that you do in fact think numbers count for something.

Weird, before the election the dems were claiming that the Repub party was burning, and where shocked that they were wrong about it. Unless they make some changes, I don't see anything different in the future. Waiting for the Repubs to self destruct isn't the best strategy. (unless it's their only one)

It's certainly not my intention to defend the Democratic leadership against charges of complacency. I just don't think we see quite the same tensions between where the leadership wants the party to go, where the base wants the party to go, and where the party needs to go if it's to remain electable.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think some of that has to do with clustering. Here in Chicago, the Dems did win handily and it confuses them that they didn't nationwide. They just don't seem to realize that the rest of the country isn't Chicago.

The world ends at Sugar Grove. Aurora is scary enough, where cold breaths from the western abyssal flats strip the heat from your bones.

The fact you're comparing 490 unfavourably to 2622 suggests that you do in fact think numbers count for something.

Spoiler :p :

 

[Zkribbler]

And that's how democracy is supposed to work. A simple popular vote system is simply not democratic at all. If we did have a popular vote system the 490 counties Clinton won would essentially be able to dictate policy and impose their will on the other 2622 counties. In what universe could anyone consider that democratic?

In a universe ruled by dictionaries:

a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

In other words: "A simple popular vote system," a system where people, not land, controls the vote. Who the frig gives a tiddly-**** what land wants? It's dirt!

I advocate a system the where the people who voted for Clinton in 490 counties Clinton won and the people who voted for Clinton in the 2622 counties Trump won would prevail over the millions fewer who voted for Trump. Of course, in a Constitutional republic, no faction is ever able to dictate policy and impose their will on the others. Liberty stands upon two legs. The first is majority rule; the other is minority rights. This is why we have checks and balances, federalism, and the Bill of Rights.

BTW: If land were to be given the vote, it would only make sense to give most of the votes to the urban counties. These are the counties which produce the most wealth, the most taxes, the most jobs, the most education, the most innovation. Rural counties produce meth labs and welfare recipients. In what universe could anyone want those counties to be in charge?

 

[AdrienIer]

It's interesting to note that on the presidential level the republicans have won the popular vote once in the past 7 elections. The american people don't seem to like republican ideas very much, but the rural minority is forcing it on the rest.

 

[Commodore]

Of course, in a Constitutional republic, no faction is ever able to dictate policy and impose their will on the others. Liberty stands upon two legs. The first is majority rule; the other is minority rights. This is why we have checks and balances, federalism, and the Bill of Rights.

Of course, which is why a popular vote system isn't really democracy, it's tyranny by majority and mob rule.

In a universe ruled by dictionaries

I remember making a similar argument here a long time ago and I was told I was wrong because our concept of democracy has evolved over time to be more than just "majority rules". Funny how some of those people (not saying you were one of them) who made that argument then are now opining that we don't operate on a simple majority rules system now that their candidate lost. It goes back to the criticism of Clinton's supporters after she lost that apparently her supporters only like our system of democracy when they are the ones winning. They lose one election and all of a sudden they want to scrap the whole thing and change the rules so they can win.

 

[Traitorfish]

Of course, which is why a popular vote system isn't really democracy, it's tyranny by majority and mob rule.

Aren't mayors and state governors generally elected by a popular vote? How does what I assume you'd accept as democracy in New York City or in the State of California become tyranny when applied at a federal level?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Gave more people health insurance, sure (and that is a plus), but it failed at the "affordable" in the name Affordable Care Act. The whole point of the ACA was to get the cost of health insurance under control and it has not done that at all. Still, more people did get health insurance that didn't have it before so we'll call this one a draw.

You're doing the thing that people do with "BLM"... "Well if they matter so much then what about...?!? ... ACA is just a slogan. The point is to get as many people as possible healthcare coverage. "Affordable" is just the Kool-Aid. It's a marketing tactic... sloganeering at it best (worst).

To quote God when Bender met him in an episode of Futurama: "You know you're doing your job right, when people think you aren't doing anything at all."

A message any husband can relate to... please tell this to my wife . The image I think of is in Bruce Almighty when God (Morgan Freeman) has a mop and bucket and is dutifully mopping an endless white floor.

 

[Zelig]

That is not surprising. Trump won 2622 counties to 490 for Clinton, yet Clinton won the popular vote by almost 2.5 million. That speaks of an extreme urban bias to the numbers. For example, take this chart.

I think more impressive is the economic bias: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/11/27/economic-split

"The divide is economic, and it is massive. According to the Brookings analysis, the less-than-500 counties that Clinton won nationwide combined to generate 64 percent of America’s economic activity in 2015. The more-than-2,600 counties that Trump won combined to generate 36 percent of the country’s economic activity last year."

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think more impressive is the economic bias: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/11/27/economic-split

"The divide is economic, and it is massive. According to the Brookings analysis, the less-than-500 counties that Clinton won nationwide combined to generate 64 percent of America’s economic activity in 2015. The more-than-2,600 counties that Trump won combined to generate 36 percent of the country’s economic activity last year."

Which implies that the lowest income Americans are deciding the direction of the government, which runs directly counter to the premise behind trickle down economics (that a well run economy is directed by the wealthy).

 

[Commodore]

Aren't mayors and state governors generally elected by a popular vote? How does what I assume you'd accept as democracy in New York City or in the State of California become tyranny when applied at a federal level?

A city or, to a lesser degree, state is considered a single political entity, whereas the entire nation of the US is not. It is a union of many political entities and for the system to work each political entity within the union must have an equal voice or the whole thing falls apart.

 

[onejayhawk]

Not sure what you're showing but in Cook County IL, Hillary won 1,611,946 to Trump's 453,287

That's my bad. They are swing numbers not margin numbers.

J

 

[Agent327]

Oh, semantics.

I thought not.

Since you did not mean what you wrote, why write it in the first place?

So you are complaining about a narrative, but you don't want a narrative. Makes sense.

How about actually addressing points being made?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Of course, which is why a popular vote system isn't really democracy, it's tyranny by majority and mob rule. I remember making a similar argument here a long time ago and I was told I was wrong because our concept of democracy has evolved over time to be more than just "majority rules". Funny how some of those people (not saying you were one of them) who made that argument then are now opining that we don't operate on a simple majority rules system now that their candidate lost. It goes back to the criticism of Clinton's supporters after she lost that apparently her supporters only like our system of democracy when they are the ones winning. They lose one election and all of a sudden they want to scrap the whole thing and change the rules so they can win.

Commodore, your doing a fine job with this argument , but you're also talking around the real and (IMNSHO best) part of your position.

In a system based on "representation", the voters who do vote are proxies for the voters who don't vote. In other words, everyone who chooses not to vote (or vote for a candidate they know can't win) has made a conscious decision to let their neighbors pick for them. It's like saying... "Meh, I can't be bothered picking, I'll just go with whoever my neighbors pick." So although Hillary got more votes by far, she only got more votes from the people who were actually motivated to physically vote. She did not get the majority of implied proxies, which is why she lost. The majority of people in FL, PA, MI, WI, etc., that voted for Trump were given implied authority to vote on behalf of each and every person in those states that did not show up to vote themselves (or voted third party).

Now for my pro-Obama spin on how this result is actually a bold stamp of approval on his legacy... The nomination of President Obama in 2008 was a direct repudiation of Hillary by the Democratic Party. The Democrats rejected Hillary in favor of essentially a political neophyte. We got 8 years under said political neophyte, and the result is, at its' core a direct result of the decision not to go with Hillary. I choose to believe that a good portion of the American people understand this and have said:

Meh, we rejected Hillary, took a chance on the new guy, and it turned out pretty good, actually. We don't regret rejecting Hillary, in fact we think we are better off for it. So... why would we reverse ourselves and now elect Hillary? That would be like saying we were wrong to reject her in the first place... which we weren't. We didn't want her then, and we don't want her now, let's go with the new guy again instead.

So in that sense, Trump's win is actually a confirmation that the American people are confident that the decision to elect Pres Obama instead of Hillary was correct. Trump is not a repudiation of Obama, he is a confirmation of the rejection of Hillary.