Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
vcczar

Democratic Support by Ideology

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Actinguy said:

Except...everyone actually does understand what is being discussed.  You underestimate the people on this forum.  

They are, largely, an intelligent people with a sincere interest in politics.  

They are capable of understanding that when we are talking about the US Presidential election, then the terms in use are as applied to the current US political climate.

Claiming words are invalid because they’re not being used exclusively to talk about people who are long dead or Scandinavian or whatever adds nothing to a conversation about the current American presidential election.

 

 

Well, maybe it might be nice to have a serious discussion about something OTHER than analyzing and dissecting to death from a thousand angles the 2020 election. But everytime some one tries to start a dialogue on anything unrelated, or start or update a scenario creation thread - and it's been more than just me who has tried to do so - it either gets ignored outright, or a few bland, token responses, and then back to the grind of an election, that I can't possibly foresee as being anything but a disappointment in a long-term, practical way, regardless of which party wins, and that  I'm bone sick of already, despite it being more than a year - because virtually all the bandwidth on this site is monotonously devoted to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Patine said:

Well, maybe it might be nice to have a serious discussion about something OTHER than analyzing and dissecting to death from a thousand angles the 2020 election. But everytime some one tries to start a dialogue on anything unrelated, or start or update a scenario creation thread - and it's been more than just me who has tried to do so - it either gets ignored outright, or a few bland, token responses, and then back to the grind of an election, that I can't possibly foresee as being anything but a disappointment in a long-term, practical way, regardless of which party wins, and that  I'm bone sick of already, despite it being more than a year - because virtually all the bandwidth on this site is monotonously devoted to it.

Sure, that’s fair I guess.  I admit my own focus is entirely on this election — I’d be interested in scenarios that look at this election from other angles, perhaps.  But I don’t really know enough about the parties or candidates of other countries to be that interested in foreign or fictional scenarios.

At the end of the day, there’s more focus on the American election because it’s going to impact most of us directly.  We don’t have the luxury of rolling our eyes and saying bah humbug — it’s actually going to matter in our day to day lives.  Scary things have become normalized in a terrifyingly short amount of time, and if we don’t reject those in this election, then they may become a permanent part of our psyche rather than an anomaly.  

Maybe that’s not interesting to you, and that’s okay.  You don’t have to be interested if you don’t want to be.  You’re welcome to bring up whatever other topics you may find of interest.

But if you’re not getting the engagement on those topics that you seek, I’d recommend either trying other topics or trying other websites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Sure, that’s fair I guess.  I admit my own focus is entirely on this election — I’d be interested in scenarios that look at this election from other angles, perhaps.  But I don’t really know enough about the parties or candidates of other countries to be that interested in foreign or fictional scenarios.

At the end of the day, there’s more focus on the American election because it’s going to impact most of us directly.  We don’t have the luxury of rolling our eyes and saying bah humbug — it’s actually going to matter in our day to day lives.  Scary things have become normalized in a terrifyingly short amount of time, and if we don’t reject those in this election, then they may become a permanent part of our psyche rather than an anomaly.  

Maybe that’s not interesting to you, and that’s okay.  You don’t have to be interested if you don’t want to be.  You’re welcome to bring up whatever other topics you may find of interest.

But if you’re not getting the engagement on those topics that you seek, I’d recommend either trying other topics or trying other websites.

Other websites where they play and create custom scenarios for TheorySpark games?

Also, I can't help but see the view of Donald Trump as a leader being quite hyperbolic and exaggerated. His supporters treat him with a "cult mentality" - his critics in the U.S. speak of him as the SINGULAR AND SOLE CAUSE of the shift in American society - that he is THE moving and enabling force behind the whole thing. His political opponents treat defeating him almost in the same tenor as defeating Sauron the in "The Lord of the Rings" or Emperor Palpatine in the original "Star Wars" trilogy - including the intimated, but not directly stated hint at a "happily ever after" type scenario once he's gone. I have only ever otherwise seen such an electoral tension, attitude, and viewpoint around corrupt, tyrannical incumbents in "emerging democracies" in many African, Asian, and former Soviet States. It seems very jarring to see it in the United States, with it's form of government as it is. This is one of the reasons I am so critical and dubious of the tenor surrounding this election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

Well, maybe it might be nice to have a serious discussion about something OTHER than analyzing and dissecting to death from a thousand angles the 2020 election. But everytime some one tries to start a dialogue on anything unrelated, or start or update a scenario creation thread - and it's been more than just me who has tried to do so - it either gets ignored outright, or a few bland, token responses, and then back to the grind of an election, that I can't possibly foresee as being anything but a disappointment in a long-term, practical way, regardless of which party wins, and that  I'm bone sick of already, despite it being more than a year - because virtually all the bandwidth on this site is monotonously devoted to it.

I'll admit. I'm addicted to reading and analyzing everything about the 2020 election, and I know I proliferate the most posts about it. If Trump is defeated, I probably won't be nearly as obsessed with 2024. I just want Trump to lose so badly. If anything, it's a good sign if more people are engaged in 2020 than they were in 2016. It might make a difference. 

I understand not being as engaged in it if you aren't living in America, but most of the forum users are Americans. 

This said, I do still make posts on US historical elections, and I'm making a game that deals with all of US History. 

Sadly, I hate to tell you that my 2020 election posts will probably continue at the same rate, if not more, than they are as we get closer to the election. You may want to just not click on the threads about the elections. Alternatively, you can start your own General Forum posts about other current or historical politics unrelated to the US or to the election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Patine said:

Other websites where they play and create custom scenarios for TheorySpark games?

Also, I can't help but see the view of Donald Trump as a leader being quite hyperbolic and exaggerated. His supporters treat him with a "cult mentality" - his critics in the U.S. speak of him as the SINGULAR AND SOLE CAUSE of the shift in American society - that he is THE moving and enabling force behind the whole thing. His political opponents treat defeating him almost in the same tenor as defeating Sauron the in "The Lord of the Rings" or Emperor Palpatine in the original "Star Wars" trilogy - including the intimated, but not directly stated hint at a "happily ever after" type scenario once he's gone. I have only ever otherwise seen such an electoral tension, attitude, and viewpoint around corrupt, tyrannical incumbents in "emerging democracies" in many African, Asian, and former Soviet States. It seems very jarring to see it in the United States, with it's form of government as it is. This is one of the reasons I am so critical and dubious of the tenor surrounding this election.

Again, those of us who live here don’t have the luxury of rolling our eyes and saying bah humbug.  The things that he does and the people he inspires actually affect us, directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Again, those of us who live here don’t have the luxury of rolling our eyes and saying bah humbug.  The things that he does and the people he inspires actually affect us, directly.

That last post perhaps came out a bit more condescending than I intended. I apologize for that. Nonethless, the 2020 election seems to have a certain frentic, divisive, and even desperate quality that I have NEVER before seen in an American election (and I remember the Reagan days, though I was quite young). Though academically, and judging by his own personal action and platform (or lack of a platform), and his flip-flopping, revolving door cabinet, and semi-coherent way of speaking, it would SEEM easy to dismiss Trump. And, a as a person, a leader (I use the term lightly), and a politician, he's not really the issue, in and of himself. But what's grown up around him, and opposed to him, and the battlegrounds they further entrench (because they're not new - they're exacerbated) that threaten to rip the United States apart at the seams - THAT is truly the scary part. And THAT will not disperse like an evil, shadowy phantom the day Trump moves out of the White House. I AM very concerned about what's happening south of the 49th - I'm just worried so many Americans are focused on the race to the White House and ignoring the cancer growing around it, and that began to blossom in earnest in 2016. So no, I'm not being dismissive - my concerns are just actually broader and in the longer-term than most people here (or involved with said election at all) are really seemingly admitting to. I hope that makes my concerns a bit clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

That last post perhaps came out a bit more condescending than I intended. I apologize for that. Nonethless, the 2020 election seems to have a certain frentic, divisive, and even desperate quality that I have NEVER before seen in an American election (and I remember the Reagan days, though I was quite young). Though academically, and judging by his own personal action and platform (or lack of a platform), and his flip-flopping, revolving door cabinet, and semi-coherent way of speaking, it would SEEM easy to dismiss Trump. And, a as a person, a leader (I use the term lightly), and a politician, he's not really the issue, in and of himself. But what's grown up around him, and opposed to him, and the battlegrounds they further entrench (because they're not new - they're exacerbated) that threaten to rip the United States apart at the seams - THAT is truly the scary. And THAT will not disperse like an evil, shadowy phantom the day Trump moves out of the White House. I AM very concerned about what's happening south of the 49th - I'm just worried so many Americans are focused on the race to the White House and ignoring the cancer growing around it, and that began to blossom in earnest in 2016. So no, I'm not being dismissive - my concerns are just actually broader and in the longer-term than most people (or involved with said election at all) are really seemingly admitting to. I hope that makes my concerns a bit clearer.

Fair enough.  As I said the day after the election:  "I hope Trump fooled us all, and really isn't the evil person he has claimed to be.  I hope he turns out to be the most wonderful, caring, compassionate President this world has ever known.  But even if the evil he displayed to get here really was all just an act -- the people who elected him would eventually find the evil person they sought in future elections.

Of course, Trump turned out to be largely who we feared he was (and, in some ways, worse -- though it's at least offset by his incompetence, so it certainly could have been worse if he'd had had half a brain in that orange head).  

And so we have two things:  We have a President with the worst possible intentions, and we have a voting population that is happy about that.

I don't have a plan to fix the voting population. 

So my only plan of attack is to defeat Trump, and then defeat anyone else who tries to follow in his footsteps.

Because if he wins?  He continues to follow his worst possible intentions, while the voting population that is happy about that grows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, vcczar said:

Downside to VP Sherrod Brown, lose Senate seat to a Republican and won't win it back. 

Downside of VP Warren, lose Senate seat and risk GOP Gov picking a Rep, unless legislature stops him. 

Biden/Buttigieg would be good. I think it will end up being Biden/Harris though....or Biden/Abrams, which I like more than Biden/Harris. 

Warren/Buttigieg would be great, I think. I used to like Warren/O'Rourke, but I think his gun policy will backfire in battleground states. 

I believe that the MA Gov only gets an interim appointment and then they have to hold a special election. Unless Baker were to appoint himself, he'd have a hard time finding a Republican popular enough to hold the seat in the special.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RI Democrat said:

I believe that the MA Gov only gets an interim appointment and then they have to hold a special election. Unless Baker were to appoint himself, he'd have a hard time finding a Republican popular enough to hold the seat in the special.

I also think a Democratic supermajority legislature could force him to replace a Senator with a Senator of the same party via legislation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I also think a Democratic supermajority legislature could force him to replace a Senator with a Senator of the same party via legislation

Master stroke: Just have Baker's Republican appointee change parties first

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

Master stroke: Just have Baker's Republican appointee change parties first

I could see Baker appointing Bill Weld as Senator. I think Democrats would be okay with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Running mates are largely irrelevant, VPs even moreso.  Picking a running mate as a successor is a waste of time.  Only one sitting VP has been elected president in the last 180 years.  Only two other ex-VPs have been elected (without becoming president by succession first) during that time, the most recent more than a half century ago. Only one losing running mate has been elected in the history of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, pilight said:

Running mates are largely irrelevant, VPs even moreso.  Picking a running mate as a successor is a waste of time.  Only one sitting VP has been elected president in the last 180 years.  Only two other ex-VPs have been elected (without becoming president by succession first) during that time, the most recent more than a half century ago. Only one losing running mate has been elected in the history of the country.

Ok but when was the last time that we elected a 77 year old President with reasonable health concerns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Ok but when was the last time that we elected a 77 year old President with reasonable health concerns?

William Henry Harrison was the closest to that thus far. And, ironically and amusingly, Henry Clay - who many lists have near the top of the "Best Candidates Who Never Became President," was offered to be his Vice President (as well as offered to be Zachary Taylor's, as well). :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Ok but when was the last time that we elected a 77 year old President with reasonable health concerns?

Many scholars think JFK was the most unhealthy president, despite a projection of youth in photography and film. He often couldn't even lift up his toddler son. He was on all sorts of injections and such to make him numb to pain. Some think he had Addison's Disease and would have died early. 

LBJ had a major heart attack prior to being VP (similar to Cheney, who had even more). 

WH Harrison was actually quite healthy for his age, he just got a freak illness that would have killed younger men during his time. 

Will tag @Patine

4th term FDR was probably actually the most unhealthy. He was in the stage of dying. Had Chester A. Arthur won renomination (he lost it) he would have died in office from Bright's Disease. 

For Trump, I'd say he's actually healthier than most men his age, but he isn't healthy for a presidential candidate. He's obese. The doctor's aren't telling the truth either. One piece of evidence is that they list him at 6'2," which he clearly isn't anymore. Based off his stance, he wears lifts and is still shorter than people claiming 6'1" in height. This means his BMI is actually much higher than it is presented since it's based on a false height. He may have been 6'2" at some point, but he's shrunk considerably with age. Same thing happened to my dad. He was 6'6" in his youth. He was 6'5" when I was born (he was mid-40s when I was born). I'm 6'4" and I was taller than him by a good inch or two by the time he died. My dad lost 3 or 4 inches. I think Trump has lost at least two inches, if not three inches.  A high BMI is kind of worrying when one has to be active like a president. It probably doesn't help matters that Trump only sleeps 4 hours a day. He's probably mentally and physically stretched day-to-day. This is probably one reason he can't speak well, remember things, says some of his controversial statements. If you look at videos of Trump from the 1980s and 1990s, he's actually a decent speaker. I think the lack of sleep and lack of exercise is catching up to an old man opposed to changing his ways. 

However, if there was a top 10 list for most unhealthy presidents, he probably wouldn't even be in the top 3, but he'd be on that list, even if it were #10. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pilight said:

Running mates are largely irrelevant, VPs even moreso.  Picking a running mate as a successor is a waste of time.  Only one sitting VP has been elected president in the last 180 years.  Only two other ex-VPs have been elected (without becoming president by succession first) during that time, the most recent more than a half century ago. Only one losing running mate has been elected in the history of the country.

It matters a ton if we nominate one of the 70+ year old candidates — especially one whose mental capacity is potentially already decreasing.

It matters a ton if we nominate one of the young bucks who have little or no relevant experience at this significant of a level, too.

It matters If we nominate any candidate with a glaring weakness.  Trump clearly had nothing in common with the religious right — until he selected Pence, and now pro-life people adore him despite the fact that Trump has surely paid for 30 abortions out of his own pocket by now.

And it matters when you fuck it up, like McCain did in choosing Palin.  He was running as the mature, realistic, experienced adult in the room...but then he picked Palin, and threw away his 45% chance of winning the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only yardstick any candidate should use in choosing a running mate measures their ability to assume the duties of the president if the need arises.

McCain wasn't going to win no matter who he picked as VP

Trump was going to win no matter who he picked as VP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pilight said:

The only yardstick any candidate should use in choosing a running mate measures their ability to assume the duties of the president if the need arises.

McCain wasn't going to win no matter who he picked as VP

Trump was going to win no matter who he picked as VP

McCain's defeat and Trump's victory didn't seem at all certain during large portions of the 2008 and 2016 GE election cycles, respectively. I recall that clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Patine said:

McCain's defeat and Trump's victory didn't seem at all certain during large portions of the 2008 and 2016 GE election cycles, respectively. I recall that clearly.

From what I remember, and I kept up with the race, that the only people that claimed McCain would win were Conservative hacks like Gingrich. It was as @pilight presents. It was an almost virtually guaranteed victory for Obama or Clinton, whoever got the nomination. Once, Obama got the nomination, it was almost as if he became the first African-American president that moment. I remember going into election night as relaxed, happy, and confident that Obama was going to win as if watching a movie that I had seen before and new how it ended. 

I have to disagree with @pilight in regards to Trump. I think it helped him to have Pence, since Trump needed someone like Pence on his ticket. Had he picked Bannon, Mark Cuban, Roy Moore, Ben Carson, or even a Republican that was so moderate as to anger Conservative, then I think Clinton would have won the states she needed to win, considering how close that election was. 

If I had to rate the elections of my lifetime in certainty of election, from what I remember, then I'd give these numbers on a scale from 1-10:

1980 - Way too young to remember n/a

1984 - Way too young to remember n/a

1988 -  7/10 Bush

1992 - 3/10 Clinton (Perot made this one hard to predict, but Clinton seemed likely winner)

1996 - 9/10 Clinton (Everyone knew Clinton would win reelection, but Perot caused some people to think states my flip oddly)

2000 - 0/10 slight lead for Gore. (This one was down to the wire all the way through, for the most part). 

2004 - 3/10 Bush (I remember it seemingly very possible that Kerry was going to win by taking OH, but that Bush was still the favorite)

2008 - 10/10 Obama (Failed Bush presidency caused shoe-in victory for Democrats. McCain never seriously a threat, despite possibly exceeding expectations.)

2012 - 4/10 Obama (Reelection seemed likely, but polls seemed good enough for Romney that it did cause for a stressful election night. I remember being worried at times that Obama would be a one-term president.)

2016 - 6/10 Clinton (This is the only election of my life in which the feeling heading through the general election and election night did not make any sense. I remember feeling almost as celebratory as I did on election night in 2008. Once FL didn't go for Clinton, I got worried. When PA flipped to Trump, it was like playing a video game in which a glitch occurs that's not supposed to happen. The election had so many freak victories for GOP that it almost seemed like a bad dream in which illogical things that can't really happen actually occur.)

2020 - I'd say at this moment, I'd rate this election at 2/10 Democrats. The polls, favorability, approval, Midterms, --everything seems to be against Trump despite a supposed strong economy. If the economy isn't helping him, I'm not sure anything can save him. The election will be close, but at this rate he's not winning back PA, MI, WI, and he isn't flipping any new states. I'm most hesitant with WI, which would give Trump the win, so I give a 2/10 for Dems right now as I think Dems are barely more likely to flip WI back than Trump is to win it again. All Democratic candidates are more favorable and more approved than Clinton. That alone is a huge advantage this year for Dems states that were decided by less than 1% like PA, MI, and WI. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pilight said:

People vote the top of the ticket.  Always have, always will.

A running mate might hurt your chances, they don't really help.

Biden's VP choice will make or break his chances with me, so a running mate can absolutely help your chances. Though in general people do vote the top of the ticket with little regard for the VP spot, but it does go both ways with help and hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

Biden's VP choice will make or break his chances with me, so a running mate can absolutely help your chances. Though in general people do vote the top of the ticket with little regard for the VP spot, but it does go both ways with help and hurt.

What VP do you want? You know he's pretty much going to be forced to pick someone younger, more liberal, and of some sort of minority (woman, hispanic, african-american, or gay), and probably someone from a key battleground state like FL, NC, VA, NH, MI, OH, WI, PA, or someone in those regions. However, maybe not all these. 

This leaves Abrams, Gillum, Booker, Warren, Harris, Castro, Buttigieg as prominent options. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, vcczar said:

What VP do you want? You know he's pretty much going to be forced to pick someone younger, more liberal, and of some sort of minority (woman, hispanic, african-american, or gay), and probably someone from a key battleground state like FL, NC, VA, NH, MI, OH, WI, PA, or someone in those regions. However, maybe not all these. 

This leaves Abrams, Gillum, Booker, Warren, Harris, Castro, Buttigieg as prominent options. 

Abrams and Gillum won't happen due to inexperience and generally not being strong political figures. 

Castro eliminated himself. 

Warren is too old. 

Harris is a very likely option. 

Buttigieg is a decent option as well, he'd by my realistic pick for Biden. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, vcczar said:

What VP do you want? You know he's pretty much going to be forced to pick someone younger, more liberal, and of some sort of minority (woman, hispanic, african-american, or gay), and probably someone from a key battleground state like FL, NC, VA, NH, MI, OH, WI, PA, or someone in those regions. However, maybe not all these. 

This leaves Abrams, Gillum, Booker, Warren, Harris, Castro, Buttigieg as prominent options. 

I want Gabbard to be his VP pick. Since I know he has to go with someone opposite of him, I think she checks off a lot of boxes. 

 

If he surprises me and goes with someone more center to center-left that'd be great too. 

 

Unfortunately all the people you listed as options would not have me vote for Biden. Maybe Gillum but that's only because I don't know enough about him at this time. 

 

It is looking more like Warren might be the nominee anyway, and she is more likely to pick a VP I would be more keen on, but I also think her VP pick matters a lot less. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

I want Gabbard to be his VP pick. Since I know he has to go with someone opposite of him, I think she checks off a lot of boxes. 

 

If he surprises me and goes with someone more center to center-left that'd be great too. 

 

Unfortunately all the people you listed as options would not have me vote for Biden. Maybe Gillum but that's only because I don't know enough about him at this time. 

 

It is looking more like Warren might be the nominee anyway, and she is more likely to pick a VP I would be more keen on, but I also think her VP pick matters a lot less. 

Could be Gabbard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...