America - The Official Thread

[prisonermonkeys]

I mean, how are we supposed to stop them from even trying?

You might not be able to stop them from trying, but you can do a hell of a lot to stop them from succeeding - like encouraging everyone to become involved in the political process and informing them of the key issues. And while you're at it, an attitude change from the President will help as branding everyone who disagrees with him as un-American only creates more problems than it solves.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

An attack on democracy is an attack on democracy. It doesn't matter if they succeeded or failed - the fact that they even tried should scare the living daylights out of you, and demands a response. But the response from Trump has been "they didn't succeed, so there's no need to do anything", which is only going to embolden them. If you're counting on the everyday citizen to be able to make informed decisions and resist external influence, I'll remind you that Trump has gone out of his way to undermine the media and erode public confidence so that he can control the narrative. If he can do it, why not the Russians?

But no. I point out that your democracy is under attack, and your response is "you're just moving the goalposts", so I guess you're already screwed.

No you have a horse in this based on your ego, and narrative written in this and other like threads. You need it to be proven such, to save face, don't make this about "attack on democracy". Where has it been said "no need to do anything". Once again you only care about this because it allows you to
validate yourself if proven correct that a foreign entity got someone you despise elected.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

don't make this about "attack on democracy"

How would you characterise a foreign power trying to manipulate the outcome of your elections?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

How would you characterise a foreign power trying to manipulate the outcome of your elections?

Not the way you originally did, hence my initial post, no need to go in circles, read the article you posted.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Not the way you originally did

So you wouldn't call it an attack on democracy, then.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

So you wouldn't call it an attack on democracy, then.

Failed attempt, yes.

 

[Dotini]

It is a notorious fact the US has interfered at least 81 times in the elections of at least 45 other countries since roughly the mid-20th century. This does not include coups d'etat and assassinations. Anyone complaining about foreign interference in a US election needs to accept and deal with this or stand accused of hypocrisy, crocodile tears, or extreme naivety.

 

[UKMikey]

It is a notorious fact the US has interfered at least 81 times in the elections of at least 45 other countries since roughly the mid-20th century. This does not include coups d'etat and assassinations. Anyone complaining about foreign interference in a US election needs to accept and deal with this or stand accused of hypocrisy, crocodile tears, or extreme naivety.

I'm looking forward to the publication of this PEIG database:

http://www.dovhlevin.com/datasets

 

[Danoff]

You might not be able to stop them from trying, but you can do a hell of a lot to stop them from succeeding

You mean like preventing it from happening... which is what happened?

 

[SlipZtrEm]

You mean like preventing it from happening... which is what happened?

The important question posed to the American people, then: how to stop Australians from deliberately misrepresenting your news?

 

[Dennisch]

The important question posed to the American people, then: how to stop Australians from deliberately misrepresenting your news?

How does one normally punish a liar?

 

[Dotini]

How does one normally punish a liar?

Simply show the truth, and hope it registers. Oftentimes intelligent, overly active people make mistakes. Becoming overenthusiastic, misled, confused or even temporarily deluded can happen to the best of us.

 

[huskeR32]

I was a little surprised no one discussed this today, then again, I'm sure some people didn't want it brought up at all.

Republicans won reelection in historically deep red districts; what's to discuss?

 

[Dotini]

what's to discuss?

The Money.

The money spent dwarfed all previous records by a Democrat to take a Republican seat in the house. They ached for this seat, and fought fiercely, yet still lost. The party was demoralized in November, and continues to be demoralized. The party is divided and confused over its path forward - left, or center? Populist or globalist? The Dems are a party lost in the desert. We can discuss how they find themselves, and return to being a successful national party

 

[huskeR32]

continues to be demoralized

The GOP wins that district by 30-50 point margins almost every election. This one was less than four points. I wouldn't describe that as demoralizing at all.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

I'm sure some people didn't want it brought up at all.

Which people would that be?

Who do you think the special election results were good/bad for?

 

[Johnnypenso]

The GOP wins that district by 30-50 point margins almost every election. This one was less than four points. I wouldn't describe that as demoralizing at all.

Not quite the whole story but I'm sure you know that. This race was seen as a litmus test of the Trump Presidency because he only won by 1.5 points in the general election, not their historically large margin. As such the Dems thought the seat was in play and spent a record amount of money to try and gain control of the district. The fact that they didn't win and actually went backwards vs. the general election results makes it demoralizing in the extreme. It was up for grabs, they put everything they had into it and lost.

 

[huskeR32]

The fact that they didn't win and actually went backwards vs. the general election results makes it demoralizing in the extreme.

The slide from 1.5 points to 4, in a district that they often lose by 50, is hardly extreme. It leaves that seat - again, a seat written off as impossible to win for decades - in play in 2018.

Any Democrat who hung their hat on the 2017 special elections is short-sighted.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The slide from 1.5 points to 4, in a district that they often lose by 50, is hardly extreme. It leaves that seat - again, a seat written off as impossible to win for decades - in play in 2018.

Any Democrat who hung their hat on the 2017 special elections is short-sighted.

And any Democrat that said before the general election that they had a chance to win this seat in 2016 would have been labeled short-sighted as well. Fact is, the seat was definitely in play and the Dems lost in spite of a herculean effort and massive resources.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

This race was seen as a litmus test of the Trump Presidency because he only won by 1.5 points in the general election, not their historically large margin.

The key word there being "seen", I reckon. And we all know how good the media/politicians are these days at coming up with narratives for elections that actually line up with reality.............

Take Montana and Georgia in particular - if the "story" of these elections was "referendum on Trump", then Republicans failed pretty bad in Montana, whilst holding their own in Georgia. But if you treat it as a more standard election (ie. comparing to 2016/2014 house results), then the interpretation is pretty much the other way round! Try getting a definite picture out of that.

Having said that I think Republicans would do well not to just ignore the average swing there (which lines up sorta well with generic ballot polling). But when it's difficult to measure how competitive these races actually are to begin with, plus the quirkiness you can get with special elections (uncertain turnouts, spending, coverage etc), it's probably a bit silly to try and paint these results as a clear morale boost/loss for either side.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The key word there being "seen", I reckon. And we all know how good the media/politicians are these days at coming up with narratives for elections that actually line up with reality.............

Take Montana and Georgia in particular - if the "story" of these elections was "referendum on Trump", then Republicans failed pretty bad in Montana, whilst holding their own in Georgia. But if you treat it as a more standard election (ie. comparing to 2016/2014 house results), then the interpretation is pretty much the other way round! Try getting a definite picture out of that.

Having said that I think Republicans would do well not to just ignore the average swing there (which lines up sorta well with generic ballot polling). But when it's difficult to measure how competitive these races actually are to begin with, plus the quirkiness you can get with special elections (uncertain turnouts, spending, coverage etc), it's probably a bit silly to try and paint these results as a clear morale boost/loss for either side.

I'm not debating whether or not the election should be seen as a big deal although it is very easy to argue that it is, or isn't, depending on your viewpoint. But the funding and effort put into this election clearly tells you that the Democrat did think it was a big deal. The effort, the money, and therefore the results, tells you it was a very big deal to the Democrats and therefore must be a huge disappointment to lose.

 

[DDastardly00]

Republicans won reelection in historically deep red districts; what's to discuss?

Dotini beat me to it.

The Money.

The money spent dwarfed all previous records by a Democrat to take a Republican seat in the house. They ached for this seat, and fought fiercely, yet still lost. The party was demoralized in November, and continues to be demoralized. The party is divided and confused over its path forward - left, or center? Populist or globalist? The Dems are a party lost in the desert. We can discuss how they find themselves, and return to being a successful national party

Which people would that be?

Who do you think the special election results were good/bad for?

The Democrats have shattered spending records in these special elections, the overarching result is that they are 0-4 and now they need to win 24 seats in 2018 to take the House back. If people want to argue the semantics of each of these special elections, percentage flips, particularly in Georgia, then have at it. I tend to look at overall results and so far the Democrats have not achieved what the ultimately set out to do, gain some momentum heading into the 2018 midterms. It was not a moral victory either, anyone that says so is just trying to save face and hand out a participation trophy.

 

[huskeR32]

The effort, the money, and therefore the results, tells you it was a very big deal to the Democrats and therefore must be a huge disappointment to lose.

The Democrats have shattered spending records in these special elections, the overarching result is that they are 0-4 and now they need to win 24 seats in 2018 to take the House back.

One could call it money well-spent energizing Dems in those districts, and an investment in 2018.

Four seats in the current House is virtually irrelevant. This money was spent with an eye on the future, and with showing voters in historically red districts that there's actually a reason to get out and vote. Had they won any of those seats, would've been a nice bonus, but it wasn't the ultimate aim.

 

[DDastardly00]

One could call it money well-spent energizing Dems in those districts, and an investment in 2018.

Four seats in the current House is virtually irrelevant. This money was spent with an eye on the future, and with showing voters in historically red districts that there's actually a reason to get out and vote. Had they won any of those seats, would've been a nice bonus, but it wasn't the ultimate aim.

If that's how you want to sugarcoat it....

Four seats is not irrelevant, every seat counts. While it's too early to determine how this will affect the midterms, the bigger picture is shape the democratic platform is right now. They have no message other than we oppose Trump and that's not a platform. Pelosi is a cancer that I suspect many Democrats would like to see retire or at least take a backseat role, but the trouble is, she has too much power and money for them to oust her.

 

[huskeR32]

Four seats is not irrelevant, every seat counts.

What could they do with 198 seats that they can't do with 194?

 

[DDastardly00]

What could they do with 199 seats that they can't do with 194?

The more interesting question is, of those 194, how many are really in jeopardy of being flipped? Like I said, every seat counts.

 

[huskeR32]

The more interesting question is, of those 194, how many are really in jeopardy of being flipped? Like I said, every seat counts.

Every seat will count in 2018, which is kinda my point; now doesn't matter all that much - next year does.

 

[Johnnypenso]

One could call it money well-spent energizing Dems in those districts, and an investment in 2018.

Four seats in the current House is virtually irrelevant. This money was spent with an eye on the future, and with showing voters in historically red districts that there's actually a reason to get out and vote. Had they won any of those seats, would've been a nice bonus, but it wasn't the ultimate aim.

Sugar coating indeed.

 

[DDastardly00]

Every seat will count in 2018, which is kinda my point; now doesn't matter all that much - next year does.

Well, you are wrong then, 'now' actually matters right now, like I said the bigger problem is the platform's message and the Democrats need to start crafting that right now if they expect to win big in 2018. Democrat's biggest concern 'right now' should be: how do we win back middle America and Rurals (whom we've insulted repeatedly over the last 8 years) with a platform and message that they can agree with and support. Democrats first need to realize who is in the driver's seat and then tailor their new platform to properly represent those people. Somehow and some way, they need to oust their leadership that is a corrupt cancer to the party. Bottom line is, they need new fresh faces to start fresh and push a new message that properly represents they people they serve.

They have lost 1000 seats in 7 years, and seemingly, you are assuming they won't lose more. They are going to need to defend the seats they still hold while pushing to gain back ground they lost. They need to stop the bleeding first and foremost if they expect any victory at all. They can start by kicking the progressives out, and taking their party back. Make them form their own party...

 

[huskeR32]

Sugar coating indeed.

You have any actual insight to share?

Let's start with the question @DDastardly00 dodged:

What could they do with 198 seats that they can't do with 194?

Without an answer to that question, I have a really hard time buying the notion that the Dems spent all that time and money without an eye on the future.

--

Well, you are wrong then, 'now' actually matters right now

Perhaps you want to have another go at the above question?

Quit just declaring that these four seats - seats that don't swing either the majority or 2/3 supermajority situations - are somehow massively important, back it up with something.

What difference between now and 2018 would those seats make for the Dems?