[RD] The Obama Legacy

[Farm Boy]

It's a good point Sommer. And it's partially why I'm a bit confused when people say "rurals" decided the election. Maybe they did, but many(most?) of those Trump states have cities in them, and the population of those cities is urban, not rural. Those cities tip many(most?) of those states when they show up with some semblance of vigor. My township, red as red can be, does not counterbalance Rockford. It takes a lot of farms, villages, and towns to add up to a Madison or Milwaukee. Clinton lost her election in the Peorias, Madisons, Clevelands, Milwaukees, Des Moines, and Detroits of the country, urban areas all: even if they turned in wins for her within their counties. The urban of the middle of the country could not be assed to save The Blue. Which even if it doesn't make sense shouldn't be surprising. The Blue hasn't assed to try and save them for going on 25 years now. If anything, they've been hostile.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Another way of conceptualizing it, is that while Hillary got 65 million direct votes to Trump's 62 million direct votes, Trump got a majority share of the remaining additional 59 million proxy votes, in the sense that everyone who didn't vote (or voted third party) in a state Trump won, gave their proxy to Trump, ditto for Hillary states. So for example... in Florida, Trump got 4.6 million vote to Hillary's 4.5 million, but that means (assuming a 55% across the board national turnout) Trump also got another 4.1 million proxy votes from FL. That alone closes the popular vote gap in his favour. I can't be bothered to add up all the states cause it doesn't matter, Trump won, but the point is that the "Hillary won the popular vote" argument just isn't that persuasive to me.

 

[schlaufuchs]

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.

A city is a collection of districts. A county is a collection of municipalities and unincorporated areas. A state is a collection of counties.

The American federal system is undemocratic because it routinely and systematically tosses out millions of votes simply because of where those voters happen to live.

 

[rah]

Yes, but our country is called the United STATES of America. Illinois is called the state of Illinois, not the United Counties of Illinois.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Yes, but our country is called the United STATES of America. Illinois is called the state of Illinois, not the United Counties of Illinois.

So:

1) why have an electoral college or popular vote at all? Just give each governor one vote and be done with it. At least that way we don't have to go on pretending this is actually a democracy.
2) why Troy out the stat about how many counties Trump won. It's not "The United COUNTIES of America" either.

 

[rah]

I never said it was the united countries of America or make any claims that the county count made it legit.
My comment was to show you that there is a difference. The US is a confederation of states and the presidential election rules reflect that. That's all that really matters. That doesn't make it non democratic. The current system is a compromise of the two. The difference of popular vote was much less than the difference in electoral votes.

 

[onejayhawk]

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

How about actually addressing points being made?

How about making some.

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

FTFY

Normally I would let it slide, but dong was a bit much. I always thought our thought processes were fairly parallel, just different starting points.

So:

1) why have an electoral college or popular vote at all? Just give each governor one vote and be done with it. At least that way we don't have to go on pretending this is actually a democracy.
2) why Troy out the stat about how many counties Trump won. It's not "The United COUNTIES of America" either.

There are two basic reasons given for the Electoral College, one practical, one ideological. The practical reason was to simplify voting in a pre-railroad era. Travel was difficult. Having a few electors gather reduced the total amount of travel.

The ideological reason is to grant the states greater autonomy while preventing one or a few large states from dominating the rest. States had, still have, considerable latitude about how the electors are chosen. The number of electors was chosen to over-represent the smaller states. This last was deliberate. Considerable correspondence exists about it.

Bringing up the number of counties underscores a point Commodore is making. The founding fathers wanted to have input from the people but not a true democracy. Hence a representative republic. Again, specifically to prevent large states from controlling everything, two houses of parliament were created. The House represents by population. The Senate is fixed at two per state.

J

 

[Farm Boy]

Quibble quibble quibble - confederation of states.

 

[Sommerswerd]

FTFY

Normally I would let it slide, but dong was a bit much. I always thought our thought processes were fairly parallel, just different starting points.

No idea what you mean by this... Are you complaining that I'm not giving you credit you feel you deserve? If so, really? I don't give you enough credit for making points or being right about things? Me? Of all people? Plus even when I do you don't acknowledge it anyway, so whatevs...

 

[onejayhawk]

No idea what you mean by this... Are you complaining that I'm not giving you credit you feel you deserve? If so, really? I don't give you enough credit for making points or being right about things? Me? Of all people? Plus even when I do you don't acknowledge it anyway, so whatevs...

Take it in two parts. The first part has to do with self-editing and the word dong. The second part is agreement with your logic.

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

Haha... Thanks I fixed it. That was funny

 

[metalhead]

It's a good point Sommer. And it's partially why I'm a bit confused when people say "rurals" decided the election. Maybe they did, but many(most?) of those Trump states have cities in them, and the population of those cities is urban, not rural. Those cities tip many(most?) of those states when they show up with some semblance of vigor. My township, red as red can be, does not counterbalance Rockford. It takes a lot of farms, villages, and towns to add up to a Madison or Milwaukee. Clinton lost her election in the Peorias, Madisons, Clevelands, Milwaukees, Des Moines, and Detroits of the country, urban areas all: even if they turned in wins for her within their counties. The urban of the middle of the country could not be assed to save The Blue. Which even if it doesn't make sense shouldn't be surprising. The Blue hasn't assed to try and save them for going on 25 years now. If anything, they've been hostile.

This isn't what happened in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia and its suburbs gave her the same margins Obama got in 2012. We showed up for her here. They showed up for her in Pittsburgh, in Harrisburg, in Scranton, in Allentown, in Lancaster, in Reading. Some of the suburbs of the smaller cities, however, were far less kind. And the Pennsyltuckians? Fuhgeddaboutit! I think a lot of people underestimated just how many of those villages and towns there really are, and how with a large enough margin among the denizens of those villages and towns, one could manage to erase the urban margins and just barely climb over top of them.

You could maybe make the argument that it is the suburbs of the Detroits and Milwaukees that cost her. I'd perhaps buy that, but that wasn't the story in Philly at least. But I know for sure that here at least, the urban voters showed up and gave her the votes she needed.

 

[Farm Boy]

So the people who could be assed, could be assed.

It's weird, watching the presence of hope shift. First, I wish I shared it. It's been so damned long. Second, I wish it wasn't so zero sum. But I get the feeling that's just what you get when the broad economic policies are so designed.

 

[metalhead]

And when it is geared towards getting votes as opposed to spreading the wealth. This is why I have such a hard time agreeing that Bernie Sanders was the answer for the Democrats. A huge part of the beef people in Trump country have with our economy is that their kids are all moving away from home and not coming back, the ones who are able. I have to imagine that running on an economic platform of the government subsidizing that movement is an extremely tone deaf way of trying to appeal to people whose communities are struggling. They don't want their kids going off to college if it means they only see them a few times a year.

I truly believe that if a politician came along that was willing to cut an economic deal with folks, that the government will bring the new economy to them but they have to accept that the manufacturing economy is never coming back, and perhaps learn some new job skills, people would buy in. Waaay back in 1992, Bill Clinton began his comeback in New Hampshire with that message, but promptly dropped it once he became viable again. I mean, you can hardly blame people for being fearful of the 21st century economy, whose only view of "economic progress" is that it has gutted their communities. It's just a shame that the voice that came along and spoke to them was one offering an impossible return to the past, instead of a hopeful look at the future.

 

[onejayhawk]

This isn't what happened in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia and its suburbs gave her the same margins Obama got in 2012. We showed up for her here. They showed up for her in Pittsburgh, in Harrisburg, in Scranton, in Allentown, in Lancaster, in Reading. Some of the suburbs of the smaller cities, however, were far less kind. And the Pennsyltuckians? Fuhgeddaboutit! I think a lot of people underestimated just how many of those villages and towns there really are, and how with a large enough margin among the denizens of those villages and towns, one could manage to erase the urban margins and just barely climb over top of them.

You could maybe make the argument that it is the suburbs of the Detroits and Milwaukees that cost her. I'd perhaps buy that, but that wasn't the story in Philly at least. But I know for sure that here at least, the urban voters showed up and gave her the votes she needed.

The Pennsylvania county map covers it pretty well. http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/pennsylvania The City of Philadelphia was heavily Clinton and the adjacent counties were strong. Pittsburgh and Allentown not so much. The others, some pushback but not much.

J

 

[Farm Boy]

Don't you use impossible on me. It might be hard, it might be undesirable in large part, but - it's not impossible. People know this. If they're old enough and not super prejudiced they might even remember coloredtown being a pretty hopping place before we shifted much of the vitality to the pen. But you're right to an extent - economic progress has been sold as incompatible with large swaths of people for a quarter century. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama - all pursued progress at their expense. At least the Republicans lied less about what they were going to do. So, if the enemy of the people has been "progress" than what they're going to want is "the past." That's just simple marketing.

 

[metalhead]

It is indeed. Nobody denies that the president-elect is adept at marketing, and his self is what he markets best.

There is no economic paradigm which offers a long-term way to return to the glory days of American manufacturing, without a radical restructuring of our economic system. But then we'd be filthy godless Commies. People know this, too, which is why a clear message about a hopeful future could work. People know the factories aren't coming back. Even a lot of the racist people don't really want to undo civil rights legislation. But when your choices are comfortable regressivism and cold, calculating embodiment of everything that has torn up your community over the last 30 years, it's kind of a no-brainer.

Our social fabric is coming apart precisely because nobody is addressing the future. There is an awful lot of uncertainty there, for an awful lot of people, and the approach seems to be, let's just ignore it and maybe it will go away. From that perspective, I can understand why there was such a gutteral rejection of careful incrementalism by so many people. But the opportunity is just sitting there, waiting for the right person to take it.

 

[Farm Boy]

The future has been being addressed for the last 25. And it's why I've been happy to insult Republicans freely for years and it's why I've been so damned mad at the Democrats for years. How they've been addressing the future has been very similar. All because there is no alternative to their brand of progress.

 

[Agent327]

How about making some.

I did. You started on about stories and narratives. Talk about tangents...

There are two basic reasons given for the Electoral College, one practical, one ideological. The practical reason was to simplify voting in a pre-railroad era. Travel was difficult. Having a few electors gather reduced the total amount of travel.

Because, y'know, you need a railroad to get to the voting booth...

 

[Commodore]

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.

Yeah, pretty much. I think I've been saying since the election was over that I'm reasonably sure a lot of people who cast their vote for Trump did so because they are anti-Hillary, not pro-Trump. Maybe you should be the one running the DNC, since you apparently have a pretty solid grasp on how the Democrats lost to one of the craziest candidates the Republicans have ever fielded.

While I think Obama didn't live up to his potential, I certainly don't think electing him was a mistake.

A city is a collection of districts. A county is a collection of municipalities and unincorporated areas. A state is a collection of counties.

But those districts usually do not have their own governing authority and are governed by the municipal government, which is why a city is considered a single political entity. Now, counties do have their own government which is why I said a state is considered a single political entity, but to a lesser degree.

1) why have an electoral college or popular vote at all? Just give each governor one vote and be done with it. At least that way we don't have to go on pretending this is actually a democracy.

Change that to state legislatures and you might not have a bad idea there. And that wouldn't mean we are admitting we are an undemocratic nation either. I'm sure you learned in school that democracies fall into one of two broad categories: direct and indirect. The US (and pretty much every modern democracy) is obviously an indirect democracy. So whether it's state legislatures or the Electoral College picking the president, the US can still claim to be a democratic nation, since the electors are more or less bound to vote according to the popular vote in their state and state legislatures are elected by the people. So the people still have a pretty big say in government, just not a direct say. Just because you aren't happy with indirect democracy doesn't mean we aren't a democracy.