Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

Correct me if I'm remembering this wrong, but doesn't the French system still have a potential for issues with strategic voting? In that if your first choice is unlikely to win the first round, and your second choice may or may not win the first round, you're incentivised to vote for your second choice over your first one so that in the second round you're more likely to have at least someone you're willing to vote for?  Still better then the american system of course, but unless I fucked up my recollection of the french system it's not almost completely solved.

Yeah that happened a lot. France is currently full of Melanchonist blaming that effect for their candidate's defeat.

[ChairmanPoo]

Hmm but they still get representation in parliament. In that sense it's still better to vote for your first choice so that they have more leverage.

[penguinofhonor]

spoiler

If people are voting against their own preferred candidate, why did Trump and Clinton top almost every opinion poll? Are people afraid that telling a phone pollster that they prefer a third party candidate will decide the election?

[Greiger]

From what phone pollsters I have heard from that I didn't immediately hang up on for calling me unsolicited they did not even offer third parties as an option.  It's either A, B, or undecided.  Hell last one I got last year I told them I was consitering some third party candidate I don't recall the name of anymore, and they told me they were just putting me down as undecided before I hung up on them.

EDIT: The thing is most people hate being called unsolicited and will just hang up on them.  The people who DO respond are the ones that are very strongly for or against a candidate. The average Joe or Jane without a strong partisan lean is underrepresented.

[smjjames]

No, as in the single vote I (don't) have wasn't going to put bernie or anyone else on the ticket over hillary.  Same goes for the republican side.  I have better odds of winning the lottery after being struck by lightning, over being a deciding vote in anything in my entire life.  Hell, my presidential vote didn't matter either, northern VA would have gone blue either way, and those EC votes didn't go anywhere.

Are you sure of those numbers? I learned how to run this, I can calulate the exact value of your vote (although there are different ways of deciding that; one way is "likelihood of deciding the election", another is "number of winning coalitions I create", and there are others; I can pull out my notes if you want). What's your electoral district? I'll bet the odds of you deciding that are substantially higher than either getting struck by lightening OR winning the lottery!

What was unlikable? She won the popular vote.

The answer to that is.... complicated. Much of it comes from having been in politics for so long and theres the whole Clinton stuff, plus establishment backlash. Ask 100 people why they don't like Hillary and you'll get 100 reasons.

There's really no single overriding reason why she lost, theres several major factors that were at play. And as much as the Dems want to blame Comey, he didn't make her lose. What he did certainly didn't help, but it's not the main reasons why.

Though the most immediate reason she lost is because of how Democrats have been centralizing in urban/suburban areas, which affects the distribution of votes, and also Electoral College sheneinighans.

You could do a PHd dissertation on the whole thing.

But that doesn't answer his argument at all. You presuppose that she is unpopular, and then ask why that is. But hector is questioning the premise of your argument! She won the popular vote. How could the less popular candidate win the popular vote? By definition, more Americans preferred Hillary to Trump. He's asking not "Why is she unpopular?" He's asking "Is she unpopular?" You can say unpopular relative to past presidential elections if you want, but relative to her own race she won the popularity contest, as it were.

The cause of her loss was the electoral college. The reasons for her loss are complex, but certainly, that people are amazingly uncritical of Donald Trump for things that they would murder Clinton for is one them.

She narrowly won the popular vote, in an election year with quite low turnout. A lot of people stayed home because they didn't like either candidate, and a more likeable candidate probably would have flipped important states.

I don't know many people who were happy about voting for Clinton. The phrase "holding my nose" came upa lot.

Yes, the REASON she lost is because of the EC, but whats the reason she lost? As Lord Shonus said, things were low turnout and there are many reasons why she lost. I was trying to say that there is no single smoking gun, there are several, with varying levels of smoke. You can't get the full picture by looking at one reason why she lost, you have to look at all of them. Or perhaps as the saying goes, see the 'trees for the forest'.

The question is: in these days of hyper partisanship and millions spent on attack ads, can ANY candidate be popular?

Are you talking about the US alone or Europe and elsewhere? I don't know what the ratio of negative ads to positive ads is in Europe. Perhaps if there were actually quality candidates, but the Dems barely fielded anybody and the Republicans went for the lowest common denominator.

[misko27]

Yes, the REASON she lost is because of the EC, but whats the reason she lost?

So the reason is X, but what's the reason, you wonder. That makes things much clearer. Channeling Neonivek are we?

There's a reason we distinguish between causes and reasons.

The question is: in these days of hyper partisanship and millions spent on attack ads, can ANY candidate be popular?

Are you talking about the US alone or Europe and elsewhere? I don't know what the ratio of negative ads to positive ads is in Europe. Perhaps if there were actually quality candidates, but the Dems barely fielded anybody and the Republicans went for the lowest common denominator.

It's really worth reminding everyone that parties in this country don't "field" people, that's not how this works. If that was how this worked you better fucking believe we wouldn't have Trump as President. People say "hey, I want to run for the republican nominee" and then the party says "ok". It is, of course, entirely possible to start a campaign which receives no traction at all for the duration of the contest, in which case you will probably not win, but that's up to the media, not the party. The party can influence things of course, but the media runs the show. The parties aren't organized along the lines that they are in Europe and parliamentary systems: if you say you're a republican, there isn't anyone on this earth who has the right to take that away from you, no matter how much they may want to.

So neither party can just "field better candidates". They can try and recruit already existing people who might be interested, but they really don't have much say in the process. If no one decent runs, no one decent runs, and the parties have to live with the resuts just like we do. Case in point, Donald J. Trump.

[smjjames]

I meant field as in the candidates that were on the field or just 'the field or pool of candidates'. And by Republicans, I meant the voters, not the party itself, the party mostly vehemently rejected Trump before being forced to swallow the bitter pill.

Didn't help that the Dems and the media (though I'm not sure which one started it, then it became self reinforcing) pretty much acted like Hillary was pre-crowned.

[sluissa]

It's really worth reminding everyone that parties in this country don't "field" people, that's not how this works. If that was how this worked you better fucking believe we wouldn't have Trump as President. People say "hey, I want to run for the republican nominee" and then the party says "ok". It is, of course, entirely possible to start a campaign which receives no traction at all for the duration of the contest, in which case you will probably not win, but that's up to the media, not the party. The party can influence things of course, but the media runs the show. The parties aren't organized along the lines that they are in Europe and parliamentary systems: if you say you're a republican, there isn't anyone on this earth who has the right to take that away from you, no matter how much they may want to.

So neither party can just "field better candidates". They can try and recruit already existing people who might be interested, but they really don't have much say in the process. If no one decent runs, no one decent runs, and the parties have to live with the resuts just like we do. Case in point, Donald J. Trump.

Officially that's not how it works, in reality, that's how it works, at least on the Democratic side. Republicans obviously allowed just about anyone in their race, as evidenced by the bottle of Fanta that won. But the Democrats basically cleared the field. I know there were more than 3 at the beginning, but they almost all dropped out immediatley to leave O'Malley, almost as forgettable as the earlier dropouts and notable only in that his podium might as well have been empty during the debates. Sanders, who was the only one to seriously challenge Clinton, likely because he was the only one not deeply entrenched and reliant on the democratic party and thus the only one who could easily buck the "will" of the party leadership. And her royal highness in exile, Hillary... notable in that the DNC had already started arranging media narratives for her before she even publicly announced.

Edit: Just to make it more clear. Sanders is the exception to this rule. O'Malley seemed like a setup. A foil just to stand up there next to Clinton to make it seem like she wasn't running unopposed. But nobody else that existed as a solid member of the democratic party would have been allowed to challenge her seriously.

[Starver]

The question is: in these days of hyper partisanship and millions spent on attack ads, can ANY candidate be popular?

Are you talking about the US alone or Europe and elsewhere? I don't know what the ratio of negative ads to positive ads is in Europe.

I think this case did something to stymie the negativity in the UK. There is negativity (so both "project fear" and the labelling of such), but I'm sure it's nothing like what I've seen of the Attack Ad culture of the US, both by convention and regulation (including financial, without the millions freely floating about in satellite campaigning systems to just chuck away on 'unofficial' broadside shots).

That said, I am still fed up with the negativity I see, and the few 'positives' of "we will do this" that I tend to disbelieve and are generally back-handedly negative (often falsely).

But any "<foo> sleeps with prostitutes, and then refuses to even pay them!" manure-spreading is pretty much clamped down upon (at least within traditional advertising spaces, a field of play that's now getting dwarfed by the non-MSM landscape, however, which some people consider 'good').

[alway]

It's really worth reminding everyone that parties in this country don't "field" people, that's not how this works. If that was how this worked you better fucking believe we wouldn't have Trump as President. People say "hey, I want to run for the republican nominee" and then the party says "ok". It is, of course, entirely possible to start a campaign which receives no traction at all for the duration of the contest, in which case you will probably not win, but that's up to the media, not the party. The party can influence things of course, but the media runs the show. The parties aren't organized along the lines that they are in Europe and parliamentary systems: if you say you're a republican, there isn't anyone on this earth who has the right to take that away from you, no matter how much they may want to.

So neither party can just "field better candidates". They can try and recruit already existing people who might be interested, but they really don't have much say in the process. If no one decent runs, no one decent runs, and the parties have to live with the resuts just like we do. Case in point, Donald J. Trump.

Officially that's not how it works, in reality, that's how it works, at least on the Democratic side. Republicans obviously allowed just about anyone in their race, as evidenced by the bottle of Fanta that won. But the Democrats basically cleared the field. I know there were more than 3 at the beginning, but they almost all dropped out immediatley to leave O'Malley, almost as forgettable as the earlier dropouts and notable only in that his podium might as well have been empty during the debates. Sanders, who was the only one to seriously challenge Clinton, likely because he was the only one not deeply entrenched and reliant on the democratic party and thus the only one who could easily buck the "will" of the party leadership. And her royal highness in exile, Hillary... notable in that the DNC had already started arranging media narratives for her before she even publicly announced.

Edit: Just to make it more clear. Sanders is the exception to this rule. O'Malley seemed like a setup. A foil just to stand up there next to Clinton to make it seem like she wasn't running unopposed. But nobody else that existed as a solid member of the democratic party would have been allowed to challenge her seriously.

Except none of this is actually true. Case in point, when Obama was in Sanders' shoes and won. Most of these things you cite just plain don't matter. The DNC is basically a powerless fundraising organization scrabbled together by whatever volunteers they can find. Democrats have no media conglomerates to push messaging on (unlike Republicans' Fox News and Bannon's networks). At best, there's corporate conglomerate networks with a neoliberal agenda; but those soft-balled trump into the presidency.

What really matters is recognition. O'Malley could have sensible positions on everything and nobody would actually care simply because his name hasn't been around long enough for him to be known for anything other than 'democrat man' (the least memorable of superheros). Charisma plays a part, as does effective messaging, of which traditional media is currently only a small part. Sanders did well with certain demographics, mostly those we interact with, but abysmally among others, who saw him as a complete crank and overall dangerous nutter thanks to his anti-wall street messaging. Obama won because he had a message of hope and of progressive values. O'Malley vanished like a character in a horror film because he had *no* message. Clinton got as far as she did essentially on an implied message of 'stable government you can trust,' built up over her career and the previous Clinton presidency. Biden would have won on the same message as Clinton, but with more charisma (he was, after all, the *actual* intended nominee; Clinton was just the fill-in when they realized nobody else had name recognition). Sanders lost because he scared off the 40+ crowd by talking too badly about wall street.

As for what I mean by that (after all, our demographic views wall street and the parasite upper class as incredibly negative, and so this needs clarifying), if you are on track to retire at some point, most of your retirement plan is sitting in the stock markets. To the point where a 10% drop in the markets could be a full year of income lost for you. Some dude comes in clamoring to do things that are made to sound harmful to the stock market? No way in hell are you voting for him. By pushing this issue above all else -- and in a way that didn't appeal to older voters -- he entirely lost those major demographics and so lost the election. Unlike Obama, who pulled off an upset win against Clinton, his message was able to be interpreted very negatively. Had he put more emphasis on protecting wealth through improving the regulations on financial markets to stave off further financial crashes that severely impact stock portfolios and similar things which effect older people, he may well have been able to pull in more of those voters. The boomers aren't dead yet, and simply pretending they are will torpedo your campaign; while blinding you completely to the reason you lost.

[Flying Dice]

The tiniest of violins for Mistah Trumpet.

[penguinofhonor]

snip

Hillary was the obvious candidate because she was the one voters were rallying around. After leaving SoS, she was the most popular politician in the country. I think that's a pretty rational reason for people to be hesitant to run against her, so I don't really see the need to explain the small field of candidates with a conspiracy theory.

[Starver]

And as much as the accusations were against Mainstream Media, I think (like Trump) it was a case of Alternate Media protesting too much.  Don't like a qualified item of journalism from a news source of long repute? Say they're making facts up, as you make up your own.

As much as Fox leans right and... CBS..? (I'm guessing) leans left, they're at least not gleefully sliding on their bellies off over the wet grass towards the nearest horizon shouting whatever nonsense they feel like to entice others while down-playing the presence of sharp rocks...

[sluissa]

Those numbers are from right after she left as Secretary of State. Most people are fine and happy to give a little congratulations and good job to someone they see as retiring and not coming back, as she said she was doing.

Almost as soon as she threw her hat in the ring again for president though, things became a lot less stable.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

[Neonivek]

Another issue with Hillary Clinton is that she is a woman.

As such she is held to a much higher standard than the male constituents and is much more harshly punished for any indiscretion.

She is also limited to how she can actually respond politically due to this double standard as well.

Not to mention as a woman she is considered to be a fanatical feminist, regardless of what her actual views are.