Print

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

[EnigmaticHat]

I'm a Bernie supporter so I hate to say this but... its looking like Trump v Hillary.  Its looking a LOT like Trump v Hillary. 

Its gonna be a fun, not at all aggravating 4 years.  US politics are cyclical, history suggests that if Trump wins it might be the precursor to congress flipping.  The reverse of that is that if Trump wins, he gets a Republican congress with which to do... whatever it is that Trump decides to do.  If Hillary wins things will probably continue more or less like they did under Obama.  I'm sure she'll find a way to kill massive amounts of people in some third world country for no good reason, and make all the various investigations she's under go away.

[mainiac]

US politics are cyclical

Not they aren't.

it might be the precursor to congress flipping.

What it might be a precursor to is that congress is gerrymandered as fuck and will still be gerrymandered as fuck.

[smjjames]

Meh. Trump has essentially been running unopposed since Cruz dropped out, and even when Kasich had a chance to take center stage he let it slip through his fingers.

He missed EVERY SINGLE chance to take center stage the entire campaign.

I'm a Bernie supporter so I hate to say this but... its looking like Trump v Hillary.  Its looking a LOT like Trump v Hillary. 

Its gonna be a fun, not at all aggravating 4 years.  US politics are cyclical, history suggests that if Trump wins it might be the precursor to congress flipping.  The reverse of that is that if Trump wins, he gets a Republican congress with which to do... whatever it is that Trump decides to do.  If Hillary wins things will probably continue more or less like they did under Obama.  I'm sure she'll find a way to kill massive amounts of people in some third world country for no good reason, and make all the various investigations she's under go away.

Well, there is a good chance of the republicans having downballot losses this year. They might not lose the House, but they might lose the senate or otherwise get a narrower majority.

US politics are cyclical

Not they aren't.

They aren't absolutely cyclical, no, but there is a general tendency.

[Frumple]

... y'know, I just now noticed that apparently virginia's governor re-enfranchised a, uh. Couple hundred thousand ex-cons, two weeks or so ago. And intends to continue doing so at least until his term is up.

It. It's a thing. Definitely a good thing, because continuing to deny folks that have served their time a vote is complete bullshit, but... yeah.

[EnigmaticHat]

US politics are cyclical

Not they aren't.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Yeah they are, the dominant party flips every ~50 years, congress sometimes does temporary flips in the short term.  In both cases the catalyst for change is both houses and the presidency being held by the same party.  Go down the list, tell me I'm wrong.  Remember, 1 congress = 2 years.  The democrats start off with a short one, 19th to 36th (just 34 years, ended with Democrat James Buchanan's presidency), then Republicans get 37th to 62nd (exactly 50 years, ended with Republican president Herbert Hoover) then democrats get 63rd to 103rd (80 years, ended with Bill Clinton who is of course a Democrat), then republicans 104th onwards (21 years and counting).  Most of its on the chart but it stops short of showing the Democrats' first time dominating.

The only strong break in the pattern is the federalists who got 6 years of power and then NEVER had another time in the limelight.

Edit: Oh, and gerrymandering is not NEARLY restricted to this time period.  The corruption in our election processes has always been there, it doesn't change the cycle.

[Orange Wizard]

US politics are cyclical

Not they aren't.

Nuh uh

"Any amount of time for a woman in prison is bad, but when you’re a long-termer doing long time prison time it can be really bad for your mental health."

Literally the most entitled convict I've ever seen (barring that dude in Norway)

[SirQuiamus]

...cue interminable argument about the definition of "cyclical."

[Frumple]

... pretty tangential to the current discussion, but someone help me out here. Earlier today I had a conversation with a fairly staunchly conservative relative in which they recommended something called ANP as a news source, noting that they had apparently been around since telegraphs first came in.

The, uh. Closest match I've been able to dig up googling was All News Pipeline, which apparently came into being in '14 (and its use as a new source is more questionable than Cthulhu's humanity), so that... doesn't fit the criteria.

Curious to know if any of you would happen to have a better idea what the zog they were referencing?

[mainiac]

Yeah they are, the dominant party flips every ~50 years, congress sometimes does temporary flips in the short term.  In both cases the catalyst for change is both houses and the presidency being held by the same party. 

And the difference between this and "not cyclical" is...?

[smjjames]

... pretty tangential to the current discussion, but someone help me out here. Earlier today I had a conversation with a fairly staunchly conservative relative in which they recommended something called ANP as a news source, noting that they had apparently been around since telegraphs first came in.

The, uh. Closest match I've been able to dig up googling was All News Pipeline, which apparently came into being in '14 (and its use as a new source is more questionable than Cthulhu's humanity), so that... doesn't fit the criteria.

Curious to know if any of you would happen to have a better idea what the zog they were referencing?

Probably ask that relative what they meant?

There is a Dutch newspaper with the acronym ANP, but that's been around since the 1930s, not 19th century.

[Frumple]

After the mentioned conversation, I'd really rather not.

[smjjames]

Theres also a thing called Alternative News Project, which is..... basically a mix of real stuff with a massive dose of BS. Their site design kind of resembles late-late 90's, early 2000's.

Wikipedia is no help.... as far as the disambiguation page goes....

[EnigmaticHat]

Yeah they are, the dominant party flips every ~50 years, congress sometimes does temporary flips in the short term.  In both cases the catalyst for change is both houses and the presidency being held by the same party. 

And the difference between this and "not cyclical" is...?

It follows a pattern which changes back and forth over time.  If it did not follow a pattern that changed predictably over time, it wouldn't be cyclical.  Words have meanings and all that.

In practical terms, to voters, it means not much except that FPtP is screwing us.  On a predictive level it means we likely have at least a decade or three more of republicans controling everything and, as I said before, they'll keep controlling congress until we have a Republican president.  Ergo, history suggests that if Trump gets power congress has a strong chance of flipping.  Which is the original point you rather dismissively disagreed with me on.

[mainiac]

It follows a pattern which changes back and forth over time.  If it did not follow a pattern that changed predictably over time, it wouldn't be cyclical.  Words have meanings and all that.

But there is nothing predictable about it.  You have observed that a condition that is true more often then not was true in two occasions in the past.  That has no statistical significance.

[smjjames]

Yeah they are, the dominant party flips every ~50 years, congress sometimes does temporary flips in the short term.  In both cases the catalyst for change is both houses and the presidency being held by the same party. 

And the difference between this and "not cyclical" is...?

It follows a pattern which changes back and forth over time.  If it did not follow a pattern that changed predictably over time, it wouldn't be cyclical.  Words have meanings and all that.

In practical terms, to voters, it means not much except that FPtP is screwing us.  On a predictive level it means we likely have at least a decade or three more of republicans controling everything and, as I said before, they'll keep controlling congress until we have a Republican president.  Ergo, history suggests that if Trump gets power congress has a strong chance of flipping.  Which is the original point you rather dismissively disagreed with me on.

I doubt the house will be flipped, gerrymandering and all, but the senate might flip, or have the majority get lower.

Also, one thing you have to remember is that Trump isn't exactly popular with the establishment, so, he isn't neccesarily going to get a free ride with a republican controlled house and senate.

It follows a pattern which changes back and forth over time.  If it did not follow a pattern that changed predictably over time, it wouldn't be cyclical.  Words have meanings and all that.

But there is nothing predictable about it.  You have observed that a condition that is true more often then not was true in two occasions in the past.  That has no statistical significance.

That's why we say it has a tendency to be cyclical.