• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Random initial thoughts on yesterday's election...

radcen said:
The Senate wasn't really in play as it can change (theoretically) 1/3 at a time. The House is always "in play".

Having said that, even a voting revolution would not have affected wholesale change, that was not the implication. But, pretty much nothing changed, at least substantially. For the most part, incumbents still prevailed.
Click to expand...

I think they likely prevailed because a Trump victory was impossible to many of them. That has changed.
 
ocean515 said:
I think they likely prevailed because a Trump victory was impossible to many of them. That has changed.
Click to expand...
Possible. Even hopeful. *IF* this is the beginning of a rejection of the status quo, in a general sense, I will be a happy guy. I'm not quite as convinced as yet, however I do think that both Trump's popularity and Sanders' popularity was a general rejection of the status quo to some degree.
 
radcen said:
Possible. Even hopeful. *IF* this is the beginning of a rejection of the status quo, in a general sense, I will be a happy guy. I'm not quite as convinced as yet, however I do think that both Trump's popularity and Sanders' popularity was a general rejection of the status quo to some degree.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you on this.

This election season was all about status quo, and the significant frustration voters had toward it. In any other election season, Sanders would hardly have shown on the radar. Trump wouldn't have got past Iowa.
 
Mac77 said:
Dont ask me what I think of Tweeners who cant decide cause you would not like the answer.
Click to expand...
I'm not a "tweener". I'm someone who knows what I believe in and none of the candidates appealed to that belief. So you can take what you think of "tweeners" and kindly put it in your back pocket. Not everyone likes to play team politics.

Hopefully you will come to like the president that the rest of us elected for you
Click to expand...
I hope so too. I hope Trump is a great President, because I care about our country. Do you think you'd be able to say the same thing if Clinton had won? Or are you just another sheep who voted for the color red?
radcen said:
The popular vote not coinciding necessarily with the electoral vote has happened in the past, but it's been fairly rare. I wonder if it's going to become more common in the foreseeable future. 2000, 2016, ???
Click to expand...
It has, but since 1900, it had only happened once and that was in 2000. But this is much different than 2000. Bush BARELY eked out a victory in that election but unless Michigan and Arizona changes, Trump will have a comfortable win. It's not that the popular vote doesn't decide the election which I find interesting, but rather the margin of victory.

EDIT: I see CNN has officially given Arizona to Trump.
 
radcen said:
Possible. Even hopeful. *IF* this is the beginning of a rejection of the status quo, in a general sense, I will be a happy guy. I'm not quite as convinced as yet, however I do think that both Trump's popularity and Sanders' popularity was a general rejection of the status quo to some degree.
Click to expand...

The "man on the street" has been rejecting the status quo since the Tea Party victory in 2010 and has continued up until last light.

Non college educated white males have been villainized as the main stumbling block to liberal rule but the backlash has included people of all walks of life and races all along

Trump won with the assistance of women, blacks, hispanics and immigrants.

Not a majority in any of those groups but enough to defeat hillary

This election represents a new day and a new direction for America.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I'm someone who knows what I believe in and none of the candidates appealed to that belief. So you can take what you think of "tweeners" and kindly put it in your back pocket. Not everyone likes to play team politics.
Click to expand...

I edited out your statement that you care about America.

However I dont dispute your sincerity.

But making a choice between two options is not knee jerk team politics


It is the responsible exercise of your civic duty
 
Mac77 said:
The "man on the street" has been rejecting the status quo since the Tea Party victory in 2010 and has continued up until last light.

Non college educated white males have been villainized as the main stumbling block to liberal rule but the backlash has included people of all walks of life and races all along

Trump won with the assistance of women, blacks, hispanics and immigrants.

Not a majority in any of those groups but enough to defeat hillary

This election represents a new day and a new direction for America.
Click to expand...
The Tea Party is just an extension of the status quo... same people who have always been part of it, just the more extreme ones. Also, Congress is still getting re-elected at a roughly 90% rate while having a roughly 90% disapproval rate, so the "man on the street" is either not voting or is lying.

The only way blacks potentially helped Trump was by staying home, which is possible because I know personally many black people who despised Hillary as much as they despised Trump, so I could buy that.

Latinos weren't the big anti-Trump block that the Dems hoped for. They (Latinos) were in a quandary. On the one hand, they generally hated his immigration stance and rhetoric, but on the flip side they are also generally staunch Catholics and abhor abortion, which Hillary is gung-ho in favor of keeping legal. This was a misjudgment by the Dems, IMO. They counted on Trump's immigration posturing and ignored their own flaws where Latinos were concerned. IOW, they took the Latinos for granted, and it bit them in the butt.
 
radcen said:
The Tea Party is just an extension of the status quo... same people who have always been part of it, just the more extreme ones. Also, Congress is still getting re-elected at a roughly 90% rate while having a roughly 90% disapproval rate, so the "man on the street" is either not voting or is lying.

.
Click to expand...

Not only did the anti trumpsters misundersatnd trump but you misunderstand history and the events that led to trumps victory last night.
 
radcen said:
Also, Congress is still getting re-elected at a roughly 90% rate while having a roughly 90% disapproval rate, so the "man on the street" is either not voting or is lying.

.
Click to expand...

In my district the republican incumbent had no opposition in the primary or the general election.

That is typical for many members of the House thanks to lingstanding and deeply entreached rules
 
Mac77 said:
In my district the republican incumbent had no opposition in the primary or the general election.

That is typical for many members of the House thanks to lingstanding and deeply entreached rules
Click to expand...
Of the 435 House seats, can you give an estimate how many were unopposed? Percentage or hard number would be fine.
 
Mac77 said:
Liberals are sick of trump and he hasnt even been sworn in yet?

Why dont libs just cut to the chase and begin the nominating process for 2020 in the dear, sweet, wonderful democrat party?
Click to expand...

The liberals are sick of the thought of Trump. He is in their way to heaven on earth.
 
radcen said:
Of the 435 House seats, can you give an estimate how many were unopposed? Percentage or hard number would be fine.
Click to expand...

I dont know

All i am saying is that tne political class has entrenched itself in washington and stacked the deck for its benefit and is well equipped to resist radical change from the left or the right

This is the true face of centrists
 
Mac77 said:
I edited out your statement that you care about America.

However I dont dispute your sincerity.

But making a choice between two options is not knee jerk team politics

It is the responsible exercise of your civic duty
Click to expand...
False. The responsible exercise of civic duty is not to hold your nose and vote for who least offends you. The point of voting is showing your support for someone. I didn't support any of the candidates who were asking for my vote. I voted in every other space on my ballot, but none of the candidates for President showed themselves as being worthy for my vote.

If I could have written in any candidate I desired (I was prohibited by law), then I would have cast my vote for someone. But the law prevented me from doing that and my conscience prohibited me from voting for any person who was on the ballot or available to be written in.

The civic duty of voting is not about acting like you have a gun to your head, it's about choosing who you want to represent you. I didn't want any of them to represent me.

By the way, would you be able to say the same as I did about Trump had Clinton won?
 
radcen said:
- Pollsters need some serious work.
Click to expand...
22 million illegal aliens .. millions of whom have telephones .. many of whom answered polls that they would vote for Hillary ...

What's a pollster to do?!
 
Slyfox696 said:
False. The responsible exercise of civic duty is not to hold your nose and vote for who least offends you. The point of voting is showing your support for someone. I didn't support any of the candidates who were asking for my vote. I voted in every other space on my ballot, but none of the candidates for President showed themselves as being worthy for my vote.

?
Click to expand...

The political parties do not care if you don't like them and as a result drop out and sit on the sidelines.

That means they can just write you off as unimportant baggage that is just along for the ride
 
Mac77 said:
The political parties do not care if you don't like them
Click to expand...
And I don't care for political parties. And, perhaps, if more people would think like me, we wouldn't have had an election featuring two of the worst presidential candidates in history.

Team politics is the problem. If fewer people were sheep, we could have better leaders.

And, again, you didn't answer my question. I suspect your refusal to answer is an answer.
 
Slyfox696 said:
And I don't care for political parties.

And, perhaps, if more people would think like me,

we wouldn't have had an election featuring two of the worst presidential candidates in history.

Team politics is the problem. If fewer people were sheep, we could have better leaders.

And, again, you didn't answer my question. I suspect your refusal to answer is an answer.
Click to expand...

In politics "if" is a very big word.

But I think you will be disappointed to find that more people are not going to think like you which makes you a lifelong resident of the fringe.

If - theres that word again - if you vote then the political parties have a reason to care about what you think and adjust their policies accordingly.

The choice is up to you
 
Last edited:
Mac77 said:
In politics "if" is a very big word.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But the more people think for themselves, the better the world will be. I firmly believe that. Too many gullible people.

But I think you will be disappointed to find that more people are not going to think like you which makes you a lifelong resident of the fringe.
Click to expand...
It's not about thinking like me, it's about thinking for themselves. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I agree and disagree with people on various issues. The problem is blindly following along simply because you want to be part of a team.

And yes, I'm sure I will continue to be disappointed that people won't think for themselves. Human beings loved to belong to a group, even at the cost of their individuality. But it doesn't mean I can't desire something different.

If - theres that word again - if you vote then the political parties have a reason to care about what you think and adjust their policies accordingly.

The choice is up to you
Click to expand...
I do vote. I've voted for President in every election I've been legally allowed to and I vote in mid-term elections regularly and even vote in April elections for local issues. I voted all other spots on my ballot. I just chose not to vote for President this time because none of the candidates deserved to be taken seriously.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Agreed. But the more people think for themselves, the better the world will be. I firmly believe that. Too many gullible people.

It's not about thinking like me, it's about thinking for themselves. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I agree and disagree with people on various issues. The problem is blindly following along simply because you want to be part of a team.

And yes, I'm sure I will continue to be disappointed that people won't think for themselves. Human beings loved to belong to a group, even at the cost of their individuality. But it doesn't mean I can't desire something different.

I do vote. I've voted for President in every election I've been legally allowed to and I vote in mid-term elections regularly and even vote in April elections for local issues. I voted all other spots on my ballot. I just chose not to vote for President this time because none of the candidates deserved to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

You are wrong

We do think for ourselves

and in so doing reject your opinions and conclusions

As for you saying that we blindly want to be part of a team I submit that your lone wolf act is getting you nowhere

If trump had not won last night hillary would be nominating the next supreme court judge today.

And I think that would be very bad
 
radcen said:
Random initial thoughts on yesterday's election...

- All I can say is, he pulled it off. For good or for bad, Trump is it.

- Pollsters need some serious work.

- The Dems seriously underestimated the rural person's point-of-view and impact. They kept smugly and arrogantly proclaiming that the demographics have changed, implying a new direction, but it hasn't changed enough to suit their goals. In reality it's only changed significantly in the urban areas and around colleges. Much of the rest of the country is still greatly conservative, and I felt people in these rural areas made it a point to stand up this time and make sure their voice was heard, too.

- Reps, I believe, will get all cocky over these results, take it as a mandate (which it isn't), and basically shoot themselves in the foot. Not unlike how the Dems did so after Obama was first elected in 2008 and they controlled Congress and the WH for a couple years, then blew it. I swear the most un-self-aware entities in the world have to be political parties, but I digress.

- I do believe that the email scandal hurt Hillary more than she and the Dems know, or want to admit. True that she has been able to avoid indictment, but even if it was/is legal it was still a massively boneheaded thing to do and shows an utter lack of judgment on her part. And then on top of that she "lost" so many emails?!? Seriously? That defense, I'm sure, helped keep her from legal prosecution, but from a competency perspective it made her look completely irresponsible and unqualified for the job she was seeking.

- Trump is still a buffoon. But, he's going to be President Buffoon, and as such his office (if not him) deserves the benefit of the doubt now and we *should be* working toward common goals. Will he get get that? Meh, probably not, but petty partisanship of the past is a poor excuse for continuing said pettiness. If you/we can clamor for party unity, we should have no reservations clamoring for national and societal unity, as well... but I won't hold my breath. Ok, off my Pollyanna soapbox.
Click to expand...

All good points.
 
Mac77 said:
You are wrong
Click to expand...
Unlikely, but I'll hear you out. :)

We do think for ourselves
Click to expand...
No doubt some people do. But far too many do not. Trump's nomination as the Republican Party nominee is evidence of that. Trump, in so many ways, is the exact opposite of what Republicans have always claimed to be. Heck, he's a wealthy insider who ran as an outsider and people bought into it. He's a guy who has openly bragged about being part of the wealthy elite and the insider class, yet people think he's going to "drain the swamp". The same people who want him to "drain the swamp" also re-elected an overwhelming percentage of their Congress people.

That's not "thinking for yourself". That's voting with a political party.

As for you saying that we blindly want to be part of a team I submit that your lone wolf act is getting you nowhere
Click to expand...
What's this nonsense about "lone wolf". I'm not claiming to be a lone wolf, I'm saying I prefer to think for myself and vote for someone who represents my views.

You seem far too defensive of your team to be having this discussion.
 
MaggieD said:
I don't think Reps will take it as a mandate. I think it scares the CRAP out of them. The only mandate expressed by this vote is, "We're sick of ALL of you!!"

Trump is not a buffoon. If you can't respect the man, respect the office.
Click to expand...

That horse left the barn long time ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom