Obama is leaving a Democratic Party in shambles

[WFFaithful]

I don't intend for this to come across as mean, but I just have to say that you are probably one of the top 5 dumbest people I've ever come across in my life. I can't fathom how you don't accidentally kill yourself multiple times every day, but kudos to you for making it this long.

Out-of-touch elitist thinking going on here

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

I think Democrats are capable of reaching out to and inspiring blue collar white voters with a more populist economic agenda, without compromising the current social-justice agenda. I don't believe that we are too liberal, and I don't believe blue collar whites are racist, I just believe that many white people are single issue voters who vote for the economic rhetoric that inspires them most.

You mean people would rather vote for someone who at least pays token attention to the issue that most affects their life, their families' lives, and their friends' lives as opposed to vote for a candidate who wants to focus on where 0.1% of the population takes a piss or cops killing a percentage of the population much lower than that? It isn't rocket science, focus on issues that most people care about, regardless of your exact position on them. Clinton and McCrory lost for the exact same reason: people got tired of them focusing on inconsequential shit that affects very few people and distracting from discussion of the primary issues; let public interest groups deal with those issues, the leaders at the highest level of federal and state government need to focus only on the big picture items.

 

[jhmd2000]

You mean people would rather vote for someone who at least pays token attention to the issue that most affects their life, their families' lives, and their friends' lives as opposed to vote for a candidate who wants to focus on where 0.1% of the population takes a piss or cops killing a percentage of the population much lower than that? It isn't rocket science, focus on issues that most people care about, regardless of your exact position on them. Clinton and McCrory lost for the exact same reason: people got tired of them focusing on inconsequential shit that affects very few people and distracting from discussion of the primary issues; let public interest groups deal with those issues, the leaders at the highest level of federal and state government need to focus only on the big picture items.

*nods in approval*

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

I actually believe the pollsters and press knew the truth and lied to try to swing it to Hillary.

The biggest story this cycle isn't trump; it's the rotten corruption of the "free press"

Meh, that has been going on for decades. I've said for years on here that publishing election polls should be illegal. The polls are usually either wrongly calculated or simply rigged, and have too much of a "you'll waste your vote!" impact. Aren't the primary polls conducted by Quinnipiac and Monmouth? Who the fuck would believe any work product from anyone whose best college option and career move was a poli-sci or sociology degree from Quinnipiac or Monmouth? Those were the D-level kids in high school, yet they are attempting to accurately predict a presidential outcome? They'll be manning the register at ShopRite and giving incorrect change three weeks after graduation.

 

[sailordeac]

important refrains that sound great every 8 years

not just refrains but accurate descriptions of the leftist liberal mentality, and unfortunately not just every eight years but all the time

 

[pourdeac]

You mean people would rather vote for someone who at least pays token attention to the issue that most affects their life, their families' lives, and their friends' lives as opposed to vote for a candidate who wants to focus on where 0.1% of the population takes a piss or cops killing a percentage of the population much lower than that? It isn't rocket science, focus on issues that most people care about, regardless of your exact position on them.

But Hitler pandered to all the things that really mattered to people so how could they do that after dividing people into Hitler loving haters vs progressive good guys? They couldn't talk about improving the economy or "make the trains run on time", could they? That's what Hitler did. They couldn't really say good things about American values without also trashing them because THEY were labeling that Nationalism...and that's what Nazis did.

So they focused on pushing the divide with their "where you take a piss is the new civil rights cause" and "cops are white supremacists seeking to wipe out minorities" rhetoric. All their really smart friends that mattered bought into it! In theory, all of that hate was real! Besides, it's worked for decades. No one wants to be labeled any of the -ists and that was sticking to Trump like white on rice. They still apparently believe it.

 

[Shooshmoo]

Crying? I've been celebrating for a week now!

 

[Shooshmoo]

You mean people would rather vote for someone who at least pays token attention to the issue that most affects their life, their families' lives, and their friends' lives as opposed to vote for a candidate who wants to focus on where 0.1% of the population takes a piss or cops killing a percentage of the population much lower than that? It isn't rocket science, focus on issues that most people care about, regardless of your exact position on them. Clinton and McCrory lost for the exact same reason: people got tired of them focusing on inconsequential shit that affects very few people and distracting from discussion of the primary issues; let public interest groups deal with those issues, the leaders at the highest level of federal and state government need to focus only on the big picture items.

Did Clinton mention BLM or transgender bathroom issues at all during any of the debates? To say these issues were the focus of her campaign is....in keeping with your typical posts. By the way, she's going to win the popular vote by 2M, and we're only here because Randleman rubes' votes count more than the votes of the people in NY and the electoral college is a BS antiquated system, but you keep on goin with yo bad self.

 

[bobknightfan]

and you wonder why I have no hope in North Carolina. It's you. Your southern generation and everyone you've influenced intend to turn our culture back to 1975. It seems you were satisfied when officers turned off the water hoses. It's more important than ever that cities set their own social justice standards, rather than let the BKFs in the country stifle them.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

Bull Conner was 1963, not 1975. If you insist on just pulling stuff out of your ass, you should at least make an effort to get the dates right. Failing to do so might lead some people to conclude that you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

 

[cville deac]

Shoo, I wish folks would stop mentioning the popular vote. That's not how we elect our presidents, and both sides target their campaign spending and time accordingly. This isn't to say she still would or wouldn't have won the popular vote if that were the method of electing our presidents. I agree the EC may be antiquated, but just a couple of weeks ago, it was Dems talking about how difficult the EC map was for Trump because everyone presumed that Clinton would have won even if she lost the popular vote by 1%. And the map sways both ways depending on the year and population trends. So we should either amend the constitution to junk the EC, or just accept that this is how we elect our presidents.

 

[Shooshmoo]

Shoo, I wish folks would stop mentioning the popular vote. That's not how we elect our presidents, and both sides target their campaign spending and time accordingly. This isn't to say she still would or wouldn't have won the popular vote if that were the method of electing our presidents. I agree the EC may be antiquated, but just a couple of weeks ago, it was Dems talking about how difficult the EC map was for Trump because everyone presumed that Clinton would have won even if she lost the popular vote by 1%. And the map sways both ways depending on the year and population trends. So we should either amend the constitution to junk the EC, or just accept that this is how we elect our presidents.

Not going to stop -- even if the EC favors the dems but PV favors the Pubs. I still have not seen a valid reason to keep it that outweighs the reasons for getting rid of it going forward. I understand it is the way it is and always has been, but that is never a valid reason not to change. I understand that it will change the way campaigns are run -- who gives a shit? It's not like they way the are run now is ideal. I'm all in on the national popular vote interstate compact (more than 60% of the way there). This should be a priority issue for everyone in the interest of fairness but, obviously, the the people whose votes count more than others will be against it because they want the power, so it should at least be a priority issue for dems.

Also, not going to stop mentioning it when people start talking about how Trump reflects the will of the US, or has a mandate, etc., because that is obviously BS when he gets trounced in the PV. His win reflects the will of the electoral college and the will of people whose votes count more than others.

 

[pourdeac]

Shoo, I wish folks would stop mentioning the popular vote. That's not how we elect our presidents, and both sides target their campaign spending and time accordingly. This isn't to say she still would or wouldn't have won the popular vote if that were the method of electing our presidents. I agree the EC may be antiquated, but just a couple of weeks ago, it was Dems talking about how difficult the EC map was for Trump because everyone presumed that Clinton would have won even if she lost the popular vote by 1%. And the map sways both ways depending on the year and population trends. So we should either amend the constitution to junk the EC, or just accept that this is how we elect our presidents.

They didn't care about little guy in flyover country before, so why would they stop now?

The EC is kind of brilliant in that you have elections in each state for president and then it gets weighted by state. The entire point is not to disenfranchise the little guy in Randleman so it's kind of humorous to see Dems the supposed champion of the little guy want to completely disenfranchise the little guy.

Hillary won only something like 57 counties out of over 3000 in the entire country, just over 1 per state. Truly amazing.

 

[Shooshmoo]

They didn't care about little guy in flyover country before, so why would they stop now?

The EC is kind of brilliant in that you have elections in each state for president and then it gets weighted by state. The entire point is not to disenfranchise the little guy in Randleman so it's kind of humorous to see Dems the supposed champion of the little guy want to completely disenfranchise the little guy.

Hillary won only something like 57 counties out of over 3000 in the entire country, just over 1 per state. Truly amazing.

The EC over-enfranchises the little guy and disenfranchises those in more populous areas.

 

[Shooshmoo]

Mods, can you ban him? Or at least limit him to one thread?

You know I'm right, sweetie, and more people are with me than you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

Due to current state laws, presidential candidates have lost the popular vote nationally but still won the presidency.[5] Public opinion surveys suggest that a majority of Americans support the idea of a popular vote for President. A 2007 poll found that 72% favored replacing the Electoral College with a direct election, including 78% of Democrats, 60% of Republicans, and 73% of independent voters.[6] Polls dating back to 1944 have shown a consistent majority of the public supporting a direct vote.[7] Reasons behind the compact include:

The Electoral College allows a candidate to win the Presidency while losing the popular vote, as happened in the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. In the 2000 election, the outcome was decided by a margin of 537 votes in Florida, despite a 543,895 difference in popular vote nationally.

The Electoral College system effectively forces candidates to focus disproportionately on a small percentage of pivotal swing states, while sidelining the rest. A study by FairVote reported that the 2004 candidates devoted three quarters of their peak season campaign resources to just five states, while the other 45 states received very little attention. The report also stated that 18 states received no candidate visits and no TV advertising.[8] This means that swing state issues receive more attention, while issues important to other states are largely ignored.[9][10][11]

The Electoral College system tends to decrease voter turnout in states without close races. Voters living outside the swing states have a greater certainty of which candidate is likely to win their state. This knowledge of the probable outcome decreases their incentive to vote.[9][11] A report by the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate found that 2004 voter turnout in competitive swing states grew by 6.3% from the previous presidential election, compared to an increase of only 3.8% in noncompetitive states.[12] A report by The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) found that turnout among eligible voters under age 30 was 64.4% in the 10 closest battleground states and only 47.6% in the rest of the country—a 17% gap.[13]

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Did Clinton mention BLM or transgender bathroom issues at all during any of the debates? To say these issues were the focus of her campaign is....in keeping with your typical posts. By the way, she's going to win the popular vote by 2M, and we're only here because Randleman rubes' votes count more than the votes of the people in NY and the electoral college is a BS antiquated system, but you keep on goin with yo bad self.

She sure as hell mentioned them in her campaign speeches. Or do those not count and just disappear into the ether like her emails and farts?

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

Not going to stop -- even if the EC favors the dems but PV favors the Pubs. I still have not seen a valid reason to keep it that outweighs the reasons for getting rid of it going forward. I understand it is the way it is and always has been, but that is never a valid reason not to change. I understand that it will change the way campaigns are run -- who gives a shit? It's not like they way the are run now is ideal. I'm all in on the national popular vote interstate compact (more than 60% of the way there). This should be a priority issue for everyone in the interest of fairness but, obviously, the the people whose votes count more than others will be against it because they want the power, so it should at least be a priority issue for dems.

Also, not going to stop mentioning it when people start talking about how Trump reflects the will of the US, or has a mandate, etc., because that is obviously BS when he gets trounced in the PV. His win reflects the will of the electoral college and the will of people whose votes count more than others.

But you have to figure a ton of Trump voters in places like CA didn't bother voting cause what's the point. If rules were different maybe Trump would have way more votes. There are plenty of areas where he never, or rarely, campaigned, because it's not based on the pv. You try to win using a strategy based on the system we have.

 

[pourdeac]

The EC over-enfranchises the little guy and disenfranchises those in more populous areas.

Over-enfranchised? LOL. How exactly have you determined that line in the sand? When only 57 counties out of 3000 are all that is needed to almost win, I'm not sure you can say the voters in those 57 counties are disenfranchised. Maybe you should focus on splitting up the states like CA into North CA and South CA, giving CA voters 2 more EC votes.

But this isn't really about the EC, it's about your view of the "rubes" isn't it? Lesser people should be that enfranchised.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

They didn't care about little guy in flyover country before, so why would they stop now?

The EC is kind of brilliant in that you have elections in each state for president and then it gets weighted by state. The entire point is not to disenfranchise the little guy in Randleman so it's kind of humorous to see Dems the supposed champion of the little guy want to completely disenfranchise the little guy.

Hillary won only something like 57 counties out of over 3000 in the entire country, just over 1 per state. Truly amazing.

Counties don't vote, people vote. Trump also won more fields and parking lots and forests than Clinton.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

 

[WakeandBake]

Crying? I've been celebrating for a week now! This was my 13th presidential election as a voter.....and the best one ever.

Figured we better celebrate now, because as soon you guys push the Democratic Party a little further left so it can win back those rural white voters you're going to be right back on top. If the Democrats will listen to Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders & MDMH they can probably take back the senate in two years.

Seriously, though, W&B. All jokes aside. I can understand somebody like MDMH spouting all that nonsense....but you are old enough that you should know better by now.

I don't know, man. you are still griping about liberals being mean to you and middle America by thinking they are smarter than everyone else. The whole basis of your idiotic protest/spite vote for Trump was that the liberal elites were basically snobs who ignored average Americans and "told them how to think." But how? By trying to enact policy that treats everyone - including average Americans - equally in the eyes of the law? By listening to people raising their voices about mistreatment and empowering them when they feel they are not treated equally in the eyes of the law? You're whining still, even after winning the election, about liberals. You helped vote in a complete horses ass, not just personally, but professionally and publicly, to spite liberals - and you still can't shut up.

this is not about change, this is about griping and spite and quid pro quo vis a vis rural Americans and urban Americans. This isn't about solving problems, this is about getting something back that you feel is taken away in the process of doing the very thing you purport to want - lending a voice to average Americans. It's insanity.

 

[Shooshmoo]

Over-enfranchised? LOL. How exactly have you determined that line in the sand? When only 57 counties out of 3000 are all that is needed to almost win, I'm not sure you can say the voters in those 57 counties are disenfranchised. Maybe you should focus on splitting up the states like CA into North CA and South CA, giving CA voters 2 more EC votes.

But this isn't really about the EC, it's about your view of the "rubes" isn't it? Lesser people should be that enfranchised.

No, it's about the fact that the votes of people in Wyoming count 4 times as much as the votes of people in NY.

Why don't you show me a map of the US with all of that red all over to prove your point -- that one really sways me.