Hard Choices: Why Trump won and how the Dems must change (Lyin' Steve's autopsy)

[AmericanNation]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is perfect.  
It is like poetry.  

I was trying to explaine it to a friend of mine and the courtroom scene from a few good men popped into my head....

"my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall -- you need me on that wall.
We use words like "honor," "code," "loyalty." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.
I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you're entitled to!"

http://www.youtube.com/embed/_frM44bBMfA?rel=0&start=226&end=276&autoplay=1

...Now if you substituted the military points for economic points you have the working/middle class revolt to a T.  these people make the country function and you despise them.  They don't hurt anyone and you call them irredeemable bigots.  

The democrats
drowning in snark, self-righteousness, moral superiority and ego, it goes out of its way to alienate
the working man and the small businessman supporting his family and making the economy function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps us all alive.

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me
to continue building this country, you need me to make the economy work!

We use words like "honor," "family," "truth." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent building something. You use them as a punch line.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very prosperity that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.
I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a "wrench" and fix the problem (car, machine, building, etc) yourself(you don't know how). Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you're entitled to!"

 
http://www.youtube.com/embed/_frM44bBMfA?rel=0&start=226&end=276&autoplay=1

[AmericanNation]

The problem with so much of this well-thought out analysis comes down to this:

"The Dems won the most votes, and therefore they must change."

"The Dems policies are more popular than the Republicans policies, and therefore they must change them"

The logic is totally screwed, because the EC and house districting are totally screwed. It ends up with the Dems having to appeal to different people, rather than more people, which effectively means some kinds of people are more important than others.

Which isn't a nice conclusion

While you layout a cohearent thought... it isn't correct. 
1) The popular vote is next to irrelevant.
2) Trump didn't try to win the popular vote, Clinton didn't try to win it either.
3) Trying to downplay a loss because you are in the margin of error of a nearly irrelevant stat isn't a good way to go. 
4) This is the "United States of America", not the "Mass of Americans in a single entity", so this naive abolish the electoral college stuff needs to stop (thats in general not in response)   

[AmericanNation]

The problem with so much of this well-thought out analysis comes down to this:

"The Dems won the most votes, and therefore they must change."

"The Dems policies are more popular than the Republicans policies, and therefore they must change them"

The logic is totally screwed, because the EC and house districting are totally screwed. It ends up with the Dems having to appeal to different people, rather than more people, which effectively means some kinds of people are more important than others.

Which isn't a nice conclusion

While you layout a cohearent thought... it isn't correct. 
1) The popular vote is next to irrelevant.
2) Trump didn't try to win the popular vote, Clinton didn't try to win it either.
3) Trying to downplay a loss because you are in the margin of error of a nearly irrelevant stat isn't a good way to go. 
4) This is the "United States of America", not the "Mass of Americans in a single entity", so this naive abolish the electoral college stuff needs to stop (thats in general not in response)   

This ignores his main point, which is that the EC values some people's interests above others'. This is anathema to its original intent, which was to protect all points of view.

The EC intent was similar to, but not "protect all points of view". 
It was to encourage a diversity of interests and regions pick the winner... and also prevent mob rule
It just did that, so I don't understand the point.
Dems need to get broader and more diverse than a small footprint of urban interests in a minimum number of states, basically on the coasts. 

   

[AmericanNation]

The problem with so much of this well-thought out analysis comes down to this:

"The Dems won the most votes, and therefore they must change."

"The Dems policies are more popular than the Republicans policies, and therefore they must change them"

The logic is totally screwed, because the EC and house districting are totally screwed. It ends up with the Dems having to appeal to different people, rather than more people, which effectively means some kinds of people are more important than others.

Which isn't a nice conclusion

While you layout a cohearent thought... it isn't correct. 
1) The popular vote is next to irrelevant.
2) Trump didn't try to win the popular vote, Clinton didn't try to win it either.
3) Trying to downplay a loss because you are in the margin of error of a nearly irrelevant stat isn't a good way to go. 
4) This is the "United States of America", not the "Mass of Americans in a single entity", so this naive abolish the electoral college stuff needs to stop (thats in general not in response)   

I disagree with your points, but thats by-the-by. The question was, how should the Dems change? Its been shown they're popular than the Republicans,  but they are the ones that have to change their policies. I don't see how they can go about that in a coherent way, other than dumping the positions the majority like, and supporting policies the minority like. And once again we've run out of logic right there.

OK, I'll put it like this:
Party A competes successfully in 35 states
Party B competes successfully in 20 states
(5 overlaps)
Party B is shocked that they are out of touch with vast swaths of the country. 

[AmericanNation]

The problem with so much of this well-thought out analysis comes down to this:

"The Dems won the most votes, and therefore they must change."

"The Dems policies are more popular than the Republicans policies, and therefore they must change them"

The logic is totally screwed, because the EC and house districting are totally screwed. It ends up with the Dems having to appeal to different people, rather than more people, which effectively means some kinds of people are more important than others.

Which isn't a nice conclusion

While you layout a cohearent thought... it isn't correct.  
1) The popular vote is next to irrelevant.
2) Trump didn't try to win the popular vote, Clinton didn't try to win it either.
3) Trying to downplay a loss because you are in the margin of error of a nearly irrelevant stat isn't a good way to go.  
4) This is the "United States of America", not the "Mass of Americans in a single entity", so this naive abolish the electoral college stuff needs to stop (thats in general not in response)    

This ignores his main point, which is that the EC values some people's interests above others'. This is anathema to its original intent, which was to protect all points of view.

The EC intent was similar to, but not "protect all points of view".  
It was to encourage a diversity of interests and regions pick the winner... and also prevent mob rule
It just did that, so I don't understand the point.
Dems need to get broader and more diverse than a small footprint of urban interests in a minimum number of states, basically on the coasts.  

    

Trump lost every race but whites, every income group but 50k-100k, and most of his supporters were not "strongly favorable" towards him. He does not reflect the needs of interests of Americans at large. Also, which candidate was "mob"-supported again? I seem to remember some crowd sizes saying otherwise...

I'm going to say the people currently rioting in the streets tonight for no reason are more of a mob than the family men wearing work boots. 

[AmericanNation]

The idea that either major party represents 'a diversity of interests' at this point is silly; certainly it's silly to claim that the Republicans somehow represent substantially more of such a diversity or that that's why they won the EV. The political story of this election is both parties doubling down on the base they developed during the Obama years and only minimally if at all trying to reach anyone on the other side, leading to the most geographically polarized electorate in at least a century.

Sounds good, but you bring nothing to the table.

I'd say a guy working on an oil rig in Louisiana vs a dairy farmer in Wisconsin vs a lumberjack in Idaho is quantitatively more diverse than a barista in Seattle vs a barista in Boston.     

[AmericanNation]

The idea that either major party represents 'a diversity of interests' at this point is silly; certainly it's silly to claim that the Republicans somehow represent substantially more of such a diversity or that that's why they won the EV. The political story of this election is both parties doubling down on the base they developed during the Obama years and only minimally if at all trying to reach anyone on the other side, leading to the most geographically polarized electorate in at least a century.

Sounds good, but you bring nothing to the table.

I'd say a guy working on an oil rig in Louisiana vs a dairy farmer in Wisconsin vs a lumberjack in Idaho is quantitatively more diverse than a barista in Seattle vs a barista in Boston.     

Sounds good, but you bring nothing to the table.

I'd say a guy working at an elemtary school in Manhattan vs a nurse in Los Angeles vs a culinary worker in Las Vegas is quantitatively more diverse than a coal miner in West Virginia vs a coal miner in Wyoming. 

See what I did there?   

omg,
public employees, politicized union members, over educated - under skilled baristas 
vs
EVERYONE ELSE

...you fail to realize that the coal miner in Wyoming vs the coal miner in West Virginia IS MORE diverse than the democrat examples.   

[AmericanNation]

The EC intent was similar to, but not "protect all points of view".  
It was to encourage a diversity of interests and regions pick the winner... and also prevent mob rule
It just did that, so I don't understand the point.
Dems need to get broader and more diverse than a small footprint of urban interests in a minimum number of states, basically on the coasts.      

You are trying not to understand, but I'm also not explaining it well. 
Trying to steer us back to productive discourse and to better explain the point, I give you my "2 Americas".  

[AmericanNation]

The EC intent was similar to, but not "protect all points of view".  
It was to encourage a diversity of interests and regions pick the winner... and also prevent mob rule
It just did that, so I don't understand the point.
Dems need to get broader and more diverse than a small footprint of urban interests in a minimum number of states, basically on the coasts.      

You are trying not to understand, but I'm also not explaining it well. 
Trying to steer us back to productive discourse and to better explain the point, I give you my "2 Americas".  

Someone comment on this map, it explains so much of the democrats problem.