Print

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

[Loud Whispers]

Trump would be absolute chaos. Half the House would probably hate him, and I can see him ramming through five million executive orders to get things done. But then he probably would just delegate a lot of stuff to his subordinates, because it's entirely possible that 'hiring the best people' is how he does things. The kinds of precedent he would set would probably be crazy, and honestly I don't know how it'd turn out.

But everything you just said has already been done by Obama

[Egan_BW]

Probably the precedent he'd set is "the presedent has no power, may as well ignore them" that we've been working on with Obama.

[Twi]

Trump would be absolute chaos. Half the House would probably hate him, and I can see him ramming through five million executive orders to get things done. But then he probably would just delegate a lot of stuff to his subordinates, because it's entirely possible that 'hiring the best people' is how he does things. The kinds of precedent he would set would probably be crazy, and honestly I don't know how it'd turn out.

But everything you just said has already been done by Obama

You're not wrong. :v

[mainiac]

a hard and fast rule.  Using my previous definition of dominant party, and starting with the dissolution of the Federalist party: congress never changes unless it is either bouncing back to the dominant party, or the dominant party controls both houses and the presidency.

Literally the only three ways that congress can change is if power is going to the "dominant" party or power is going away from the "dominant" party or there is a change of the dominant party.  So yes, you are correct.  One of those three things, by definition, always happens.  But that's not showing a cyclical nature.

Now you are saying that the dominant party only loses houses of congress if they have a trifecta before.  I dont think that's even true.  For one thing, parties can lose branches of congress one after another.  If they lose the house then the Senate they didn't control the house when they lost the Senate.  If you add yet another caveat onto your defintion to account for those then you are creating yet another rule to describe these three events.

Facinating as this tautology is however, it provides no evidence that a Trump presidency means that democrats would do well in the 2018 election.  It's also not even remotely approaching a causal inference.

[PTTG??]

source

I don't understand how any of this happened. It's nonsensical.

If nothing else, the amount that people hate the party leaders should be a wake-up call that the parties are fundamentally broken and need fundamental reforms.

[Cruxador]

If nothing else, the amount that people hate the party leaders should be a wake-up call that the parties are fundamentally broken and need fundamental reforms.

Or of how divided the country is becoming.
#CivilWarII

[smjjames]

If nothing else, the amount that people hate the party leaders should be a wake-up call that the parties are fundamentally broken and need fundamental reforms.

Or of how divided the country is becoming.
#CivilWarII

Article linkage: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-distaste-for-both-trump-and-clinton-is-record-breaking/

Anyway, when I read that, I was like 'where the hell is a third party candidate that is popular on both sides of the aisle?' because the door is WIDE OPEN for a third party candidate to come in.

@PTTG: It's more complex than that though, republicans have a 'hate boner' for Clinton (among other factors) while Trump has generally alienated both republicans and democrats. But yeah, it's like 'how did we get to this place?'.

Would have been more informational if 538 split the current like/dislike by party+independents or something.

Also, not sure why they're arbitrarily using 1980 as a starting point, I'd have gone back much further. Not sure how much further back though.

edit: Speaking of third party.... http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/05/conservatives-against-trump-third-party-challenger-222861 Considering just how many republicans want to vote against Trump, it could end up deadlocking the electoral college and throwing it to the House or something.

[Gentlefish]

That probably because most Americans trusted the government to Do The Right Thing right up into Vietnam. Since Vietnam, the American Standard (tm) is to Distrust The Gubbmint. Hence why it likely only dates to the 80's.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The only viable third at this point is Bernie deciding to return to his independent roots. Granted, this will inevitably lead to a Mount Everest of butthurt about "splitting the vote", "spiting Hillary" and "Ralph Nader", but I think it might have been the best idea from the start. Bernie's appeal has always been to the independents, to a shocking degree if I remember the data right.

[Willfor]

Nader voting allows Bush to get elected in 2000 -> *16 years later, the repercussions of this election are still being felt* "Hey everyone, vote 3rd party again! Ignore the mistakes we made in the past because spite is more important than harm reduction!" -> Trump wins the 2016 election despite wild unpopularity.

Look, I put up with a decade of Stephan Harper despite an average of only 40% of the country voting for him, because of the unwillingness of the left to come together when it mattered. Can I please make it clear, with this memory still fresh in my mind, that you really should be learning from your mistakes. And if you won't learn from your own mistakes, learn from ours.

[mainiac]

Bernie's appeal has always been to the independents, to a shocking degree if I remember the data right.

Independents aren't indepents so it's not really shocking that he does better with the dissatisfied then the satisfied.  Imagine two liberals:

mainiac really likes Obama and thinks Obama is basically the best we can have
Redking prefers Obama to the republicans but considers him disappointing

Is it surprising that Redking is a lot, lot more likely to be an independent then mainiac?  Is it surprising the Redking is more likely to support an outsider compared to mainiac?

[smjjames]

The third party candidate is more likely to happen on the republican side though. I was just saying that right now is incredibly ripe for a third party candidate that is liked on both sides.

Still though, Hillary has a major problem with those who voted for Bernie. Sure some of them would be fine with Clinton, but if she is unable to unite those, it could end up having the same sort of effect as a spoiler. Some could vote for some other third party candidate (not neccesarily consolidate around one) or sit it out.

Obama had the support of most democrats and a good deal of independents, Clinton doesn't.

The fact that both candidates are so disliked means that we are pretty much sailing into uncharted territory.

Bernie's appeal has always been to the independents, to a shocking degree if I remember the data right.

Independents aren't indepents so it's not really shocking that he does better with the dissatisfied then the satisfied.  Imagine two liberals:

mainiac really likes Obama and thinks Obama is basically the best we can have
Redking prefers Obama to the republicans but considers him disappointing

Is it surprising that Redking is a lot, lot more likely to be an independent then mainiac?  Is it surprising the Redking is more likely to support an outsider compared to mainiac?

Didn't 538 do a simiar analysis? Let me find that.... I know I saw another analysis somewhere.

It is true that Independents aren't actually independent, more like not affiliated with a party but leaning one ay or another.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Nader voting allows Bush to get elected in 2000 -> *16 years later, the repercussions of this election are still being felt* "Hey everyone, vote 3rd party again! Ignore the mistakes we made in the past because spite is more important than harm reduction!" -> Trump wins the 2016 election despite wild unpopularity.

Look, I put up with a decade of Stephan Harper despite an average of only 40% of the country voting for him, because of the unwillingness of the left to come together when it mattered. Can I please make it clear, with this memory still fresh in my mind, that you really should be learning from your mistakes. And if you won't learn from your own mistakes, learn from ours.

It's not "harm reduction", Hillary isn't my candidate and never was. Voting for her is as bad as voting for Trump, perhaps for different reasons, but just as bad in ultimate outcome. It's not a mistake to learn from, and besides that, Nader isn't why Bush won the election, political intrigue is why Bush won the election. Not that even Bush was bad as all that, looking back on it now.

I, nor anyone else for that matter, are obligated to be affiliated as "Approved Dem (Subclass Sanders)" and then default to "Approved Dem (Subclass Clinton)" if Sanders leaves the race entirely, runs indie, or even endorses Clinton.

And it's that sense of god damned entitlement to my political support that is most odious of all. Why not just do away with the pretense all together if I'm supposed to be told who to vote for? Fuck your politics.

[Loud Whispers]

So if Bernie had defeated Hillary, Hillary's democrats would have been independents

And it's that sense of god damned entitlement to my political support that is most odious of all. Why not just do away with the pretense all together if I'm supposed to be told who to vote for? Fuck your politics.

Soundin pretty low-information

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And it's that sense of god damned entitlement to my political support that is most odious of all. Why not just do away with the pretense all together if I'm supposed to be told who to vote for? Fuck your politics.

Soundin pretty low-information

Laugh it up m8, in a year Hillary will be propping up Brussels and seducing Labour politicians with those sweet refugee visas.