advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: $156.08 ( -0.1654 )

*Cached every 60 seconds. For live updating, Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: October 12, 2017 07:58PM
He was in Seattle to keynote the Crosscut Awards. Honorees were amazing, and included the venerable Bill Ruckelshaus, who received a lifetime achievement award. Crosscuts is a nonprofit local news organization.

Taibbi focused on the press failures in the 2016 election but not the angle you'd expect. He said their failure was not a lack of toughness regarding Donald Trump, it was failing to listen to Americans. He said the corporate press, the people who follow the campaigns most closely, spend all of their time "behind rope lines" with the candidates, and have no sense of what the public thinks or feels beyond polling data. He said when he covered Obama's 08 campaign he was shocked to see in the press section of Obama's plane that journalists had plastered photos of themselves with Obama all over the walls like a dorm room. He said the coziness between candidates and journalists now has greatly undermined the credibility of the press. He calls the failure to see a Trump victory coming the greatest journalistic failure in the history of our country.

He also discussed how the makeup of the media now is so different than in his parent's generation, when journalists were scrappy types who held powerful people accountable. Now they ARE the rich and powerful and have almost completely lost touch with what the majority of Americans feel and experience.

His latest book is "I Can't Breath" and it's about police brutality. Look forward to reading that one.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: Uncle Wig
Date: October 12, 2017 10:20PM
I hope he mentioned himself as part of the failure to predict Trump's victory. I like Taibbi, but in his articles in RS right up until the election he was confident Hillary would win.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: October 13, 2017 05:46AM
Quote
Uncle Wig
I hope he mentioned himself as part of the failure to predict Trump's victory. I like Taibbi, but in his articles in RS right up until the election he was confident Hillary would win.

yes he did
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: vision63
Date: October 13, 2017 09:52AM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
Uncle Wig
I hope he mentioned himself as part of the failure to predict Trump's victory. I like Taibbi, but in his articles in RS right up until the election he was confident Hillary would win.

yes he did

He did trash her a lot. Though I am a Taibbi fan because I do enjoy his insight and writing style. Anybody could have gotten the election wrong. Many unnatural elements factored in to her losing. I don't see how anyone could point a finger at themselves unless they understood the extent of foreign intervention, voter suppression etc that was significant.

On the left, "everyone" has to be on the same page in full hype mode to win these elections against the GOP. There is no other way.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: October 13, 2017 10:25AM
Quote
vision63


On the left, "everyone" has to be on the same page in full hype mode to win these elections against the GOP. There is no other way.

But NOT the press. Only an independent press that is not beholden to any candidate can preserve democracy. One of the major problems we have now is that the public can't distinguish between opinion writers and journalists.

And BTW, Hillary deserved some "trashing."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: vision63
Date: October 13, 2017 11:07AM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
vision63


On the left, "everyone" has to be on the same page in full hype mode to win these elections against the GOP. There is no other way.

But NOT the press. Only an independent press that is not beholden to any candidate can preserve democracy. One of the major problems we have now is that the public can't distinguish between opinion writers and journalists.

And BTW, Hillary deserved some "trashing."

People say that. They just don't mention what they have a problem with. They just say it. That's like me saying that you deserve some trashing. I'd tell you why, then make sure it was true.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: pdq
Date: October 13, 2017 12:31PM
Well put, vision.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: October 14, 2017 09:49AM
Quote
vision63
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
vision63


On the left, "everyone" has to be on the same page in full hype mode to win these elections against the GOP. There is no other way.

But NOT the press. Only an independent press that is not beholden to any candidate can preserve democracy. One of the major problems we have now is that the public can't distinguish between opinion writers and journalists.

And BTW, Hillary deserved some "trashing."

People say that. They just don't mention what they have a problem with. They just say it. That's like me saying that you deserve some trashing. I'd tell you why, then make sure it was true.

Matt Taibbi was pretty specific about what he had a problem with, and so were lots of other journalists. I don't think it's healthy to have unseeing allegiance to a politician, that's a different kind of system than ours. You know that I voted for Hillary and wish like hell that she were President right now. But we all need the free press to do their job, so we can be a free and informed citizens.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: vision63
Date: October 14, 2017 10:07AM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
vision63
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
vision63


On the left, "everyone" has to be on the same page in full hype mode to win these elections against the GOP. There is no other way.

But NOT the press. Only an independent press that is not beholden to any candidate can preserve democracy. One of the major problems we have now is that the public can't distinguish between opinion writers and journalists.

And BTW, Hillary deserved some "trashing."

People say that. They just don't mention what they have a problem with. They just say it. That's like me saying that you deserve some trashing. I'd tell you why, then make sure it was true.

Matt Taibbi was pretty specific about what he had a problem with, and so were lots of other journalists. I don't think it's healthy to have unseeing allegiance to a politician, that's a different kind of system than ours. You know that I voted for Hillary and wish like hell that she were President right now. But we all need the free press to do their job, so we can be a free and informed citizens.

He was specific about his speculation. You can't find anything he wrote that that's otherwise. He thinks because he's smart, that he can throw shade with authority. Now people do make mistakes and missteps. Nobody is really interested in that. Just like Bernie Sanders wagging his professorial finger spouting the obvious. But when he's put to the task of how to make something work, flop sweat. If there was something definitive you could have presented as trash worthy, you would have typed it.

Hillary Clinton acknowledges and apologies for anything that she's done bad. Some of which she's not even guilty of. I have allegiances for people that are honest and tell the truth. Bernie Sanders said she wasn't qualified to be President. That nothing but Man talk. Yet his ass was still kissed.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: October 14, 2017 11:30AM
Taibbi was pretty specific about why he thought Hillary was not the right candidate for the mood of the electorate. He was right about that, and he wrote about it early in 2016. That wasn't my mood (she was right for my mood which recognized I needed her to block Trump) but I get that I'm not everybody or even the majority.

In the end as we know more Americans voted for Hillary than Donald. But the winner has to capture the electoral votes, and the strategy has to achieve that. Donald achieved it, she didn't.

I will never blame young people for wanting something different than the failed Democratic policies of the 90's and on, and not wanting to vote for people who brought us the Iraq War, the financial and housing crises, failed to solve healthcare, etc.

You wanted evidence of Taibbi's positions so here you go:
[www.rollingstone.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2017 11:31AM by Lemon Drop.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: vision63
Date: October 14, 2017 11:51AM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Taibbi was pretty specific about why he thought Hillary was not the right candidate for the mood of the electorate. He was right about that, and he wrote about it early in 2016. That wasn't my mood (she was right for my mood which recognized I needed her to block Trump) but I get that I'm not everybody or even the majority.

In the end as we know more Americans voted for Hillary than Donald. But the winner has to capture the electoral votes, and the strategy has to achieve that. Donald achieved it, she didn't.

I will never blame young people for wanting something different than the failed Democratic policies of the 90's and on, and not wanting to vote for people who brought us the Iraq War, the financial and housing crises, failed to solve healthcare, etc.

You wanted evidence of Taibbi's positions so here you go:
[www.rollingstone.com]

I've read everything he's written. Don't blame them for wanting something else. I'd want Kobe Bryant to be president. Blame them for what they're responsible for.

Bernie or bust, was based on purity, white male dominance, they didn't care how dangerous Trump was, the woman was equally or more dangerous. Let that slide.

I don't blame Trump voters. I blame the busters.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2017 11:52AM by vision63.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: October 14, 2017 12:40PM
Dude you're blaming the wrong people. Blame white people, not young people.

Hillary won the youth vote (55%) and young people increasingly identify themselves as liberal.

Voter turnout from young people was among the highest rates they've had (though still abysmal at 50%)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: vision63
Date: October 14, 2017 12:57PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Dude you're blaming the wrong people. Blame white people, not young people.

Hillary won the youth vote (55%) and young people increasingly identify themselves as liberal.

Voter turnout from young people was among the highest rates they've had (though still abysmal at 50%)

Not young people. Busters or Never Hillary etc. We needed them and they let us down. We lost by 77,000 votes. I can't forgive them. They wanted to vote their consciousnesses and they did. That's why Jill Stein got more votes in Wisconsin than Hillary lost by. I can't forgive them because they won't acknowledge what they did and continue to cause trouble by trashing people like Kamala and Booker.

I don't blame people that voted for Trump because we already knew who they were. We knew we could beat them. We had them in a box. All everybody that didn't like Trump had to do was turn out.

I feel like that for decades and decades Black people (esp. the south) voted for the least offensive kracka. Whatever pushed the bar forward realistically. They weren't ever forgetting who and what the beast was. There was never a time to be cute or selfish. Lives, freedom, and liberty was always at stake. That's why they did and continue to do everything they could and continue to do to disenfranchise our votes. Hillary lost by 27,000 votes in Wisconsin. Up to 200,000 voters (mostly African American) were either deterred or blocked by it's new, extremely unfair voter I.D. law. This times 100.

[www.huffingtonpost.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: October 14, 2017 01:18PM
Yes the voter disenfranchisement issue is one of the most serious things happening to our democracy, and it's up to the Supreme Court now to fix that. One of the reasons I donate to the ACLU.

But it's not Jill Stein's fault either. Gary Johnson took away 100K GOP votes from Trump in Wisconsin and he still won it. There will always be third party candidates.

It's emergency coalition building time and that's not gonna work if establishment Dems (or old school, call it what you want) keep tearing down, blaming and dismissing the people who are natural allies; we need to bring them in. Let's do it and win in 2020 and come up with somebody people will be excited to vote for. (Sorry no Kobe for me but I'm all for Ms. Harris)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: vision63
Date: October 14, 2017 01:22PM
Nobody was expecting Johnson's voters. We're more angry at the 9% of Black people that voted "for" Trump. This is anger lite.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: October 14, 2017 03:18PM
Quote
vision63
Nobody was expecting Johnson's voters. We're more angry at the 9% of Black people that voted "for" Trump. This is anger lite.

Yeah well in the world there is Ben Carson. And other things I cannot explain.

I love your beautiful soul. Don't forget it.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: vision63
Date: October 14, 2017 03:54PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
vision63
Nobody was expecting Johnson's voters. We're more angry at the 9% of Black people that voted "for" Trump. This is anger lite.

Yeah well in the world there is Ben Carson. And other things I cannot explain.

I love your beautiful soul. Don't forget it.

I never forget. I love yours always.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: anonymouse1
Date: October 14, 2017 04:29PM
This, from one of the best Democratic pollsters, is an excellent recap on how Hillary's own failings contributed to her loss, IMHO:
[prospect.org]

I acknowledge the Russian meddling and the Comet stuff. Hillary ran a fatally flawed campaign.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: vision63
Date: October 15, 2017 01:11AM
Quote
anonymouse1
This, from one of the best Democratic pollsters, is an excellent recap on how Hillary's own failings contributed to her loss, IMHO:
[prospect.org]

I acknowledge the Russian meddling and the Comet stuff. Hillary ran a fatally flawed campaign.

I already read that. So if 77,000 votes went the other way and she won, then what? It doesn't get more BS than that.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: Dennis S
Date: October 15, 2017 10:35AM
I think getting 3 million more votes than your opponent negates any gripes about running a bad campaign.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: vision63
Date: October 15, 2017 11:01AM
Quote
Dennis S
I think getting 3 million more votes than your opponent negates any gripes about running a bad campaign.

foreal
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: October 15, 2017 12:01PM
I wish it were that simple.

Reality: to become president you have to win the electoral college, not the popular vote. If you achieve the latter and not the former, you're still the loser.

That's why I want the electoral college abolished. It aids and abets all the forces that are hurting our democracy: voter disenfranchisement, foreign intervention, dark money in politics, etc.

Let the people decide. At this moment in history, when it comes to President of the United States, we don't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: JoeH
Date: October 15, 2017 12:03PM
Bad campaign - well no. Poorly or incorrectly focused however would be an entirely valid observation.

Essentially the Clinton campaign proved something that has been known for a long time, you can win a number of large states with with many electoral college votes. But if too many smaller states are lost, by whatever margin, then they will add up to a win for the opponent.

Telling is that the winning margins for the two largest states in the Clinton win column, CA and NY, add up to about 5 million votes. Compare that with the margins for the two largest states in 45's win column, TX and FL, that adds up to less than a million. Going further, none of the winning margins for 45 are over a million votes, TX was the closest to that amount at 807k. Essentially in the end, the Clinton campaign won some battles, but lost sight of winning the war.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: vision63
Date: October 15, 2017 12:26PM
Quote
JoeH
Bad campaign - well no. Poorly or incorrectly focused however would be an entirely valid observation.

Essentially the Clinton campaign proved something that has been known for a long time, you can win a number of large states with with many electoral college votes. But if too many smaller states are lost, by whatever margin, then they will add up to a win for the opponent.

Telling is that the winning margins for the two largest states in the Clinton win column, CA and NY, add up to about 5 million votes. Compare that with the margins for the two largest states in 45's win column, TX and FL, that adds up to less than a million. Going further, none of the winning margins for 45 are over a million votes, TX was the closest to that amount at 807k. Essentially in the end, the Clinton campaign won some battles, but lost sight of winning the war.

Never "lost sight." See this is the kind of "speculation" that's crazy. Like you interviewed somebody and this is what they told you.

You're stating a lot of the obvious. You have to win the states you're "supposed" to win. So if you seek to examine "what happened" and as Lemon Drop says, "win the Electoral College," because surely this is something the Clinton campaign never considered seriously, you'd need to focus on each "situation."

If in fact it was the Electoral College that was blindly ignored, and now is being blamed as the major impediment/hurdle, then what would be a true strategy regarding harnessing enough to win?

What's wrong with the Electoral College? It's easy to dismiss and desire to toss out because it theoretically usurps the power of the people. I would never want to throw it out. I would want to "repair" it. Now if it's hopelessly beyond repair, then yeah, it's got to go. But knowing that it's a key part of how the GOP has leveraged it's waning power to elevate itself, I can safely say it ain't going nowhere.

Now you know and I know that many people know yet hardly anyone knows that the true purpose of the Electoral College was to function as a safety lever designed to 1. Prevent a hostile power or internal force from destroying our democracy based on rank popularity. Yes, this entity was designed to specifically protect us from a Donald Trump. 2. Balance the power of the states, smaller vs. larger. Yada Yada.

It should be extremely to fix. Constitutionally, there is no provision for "winner take all" regarding electors in the various states. The states took it upon themselves to deviate from the initial purpose of how electors are drawn and applied winner takes all. Further, many dictate that electors "must" vote the will of the people.

Electors are supposed to have the authority to discern what the best course is regarding how they should vote. How do you stop a Hitler if he wins everything? How do you stop a fundamentalist zealot if he/she wins everything?

This was designed to stop Trump. Now, who knows what we may face? We need the Electoral College or something like it.

You can't trust the people. You mention Unity, but in 2016, people like me begged for unity. To rally around the only person in a position to stop this madman. I and many others called it a National Emergency. This means it ain't about you anymore. It's about our country. Our civilization. But too many of those that disliked Trump chose to do otherwise and here we are.

OH, as a side note. This is how I type when I'm on a computer vs the near gibberish I type when I'm on a phone. JoeH is probably like "Dude, it's all gibberish." I try.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/15/2017 12:30PM by vision63.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: October 15, 2017 12:41PM
Unless a lot of liberal Dems are willing to leave the west coast and northeast and move to Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania - this is going to keep happening.

Dems have shot themselves in the foot with the electoral college by concentrating in certain populous areas. Conversely, these areas attract liberals because they have lots of well educated people, very good jobs, strong economies, and thriving arts/creative scenes. Then the hometowns that are left behind become increasingly resentful, and the politician who tells them those "elites" are ruining everything - wins.

That's what people like Matt Taibbi are saying the media really, really missed during the 2016 campaign. That populist anger that fueled Donald Trump.

You could draw a parallel with the historic bidding war that Amazon launched in its search for a second HQ. The area that meets their demands is likely a place that's already "winning." They're a private company, not the government or a social service nonprofit, so it doesn't have to be their mission to lift up a struggling city. (like say Detroit, or a small town in Georgia). But the message is clear: some places are winning, a lot others are losing.

The person who can beat Donald in 2020 has to connect with the places that are not "winning" and create some realistic promise of a better future, or we're doomed to his second term. They can't just speak to the people who are already on board with liberal politics.

PS: And I don't mean connect with racists and bigots. Separate problem!! The GOP can keep those.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/15/2017 12:43PM by Lemon Drop.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: vision63
Date: October 15, 2017 12:57PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Unless a lot of liberal Dems are willing to leave the west coast and northeast and move to Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania - this is going to keep happening.

Dems have shot themselves in the foot with the electoral college by concentrating in certain populous areas. Conversely, these areas attract liberals because they have lots of well educated people, very good jobs, strong economies, and thriving arts/creative scenes. Then the hometowns that are left behind become increasingly resentful, and the politician who tells them those "elites" are ruining everything - wins.

That's what people like Matt Taibbi are saying the media really, really missed during the 2016 campaign. That populist anger that fueled Donald Trump.

You could draw a parallel with the historic bidding war that Amazon launched in its search for a second HQ. The area that meets their demands is likely a place that's already "winning." They're a private company, not the government or a social service nonprofit, so it doesn't have to be their mission to lift up a struggling city. (like say Detroit, or a small town in Georgia). But the message is clear: some places are winning, a lot others are losing.

The person who can beat Donald in 2020 has to connect with the places that are not "winning" and create some realistic promise of a better future, or we're doomed to his second term. They can't just speak to the people who are already on board with liberal politics.

PS: And I don't mean connect with racists and bigots. Separate problem!! The GOP can keep those.

All of 'em knowingly voted for a racist, sexist, bigot and thought, this is better. I don't think we can win them over. I would love to be wrong about that.

Purity tests abound. Why was a Medicare for All initiative launched exactly when we were trying to salvage the ACA for the second time? How do you win a conservative congressional district unless you counter with a moderate Democrat? That's not acceptable to a number of our own side. How do you appeal to conservatives without meeting them halfway or at some level? The far left won't allow that.

Personally, I'm never worried about what someone or something thinks about me. I'm only worried about how can they stop me from doing what I want to do. Nobody has to like me. Same thing moving forward politically. The only way we are stopped is when are divided up. It's all about votes. That's up to the individual. If your own side won't vote for you, then it's done.

I liked the Amazon parallel.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/15/2017 12:57PM by vision63.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: Speedy
Date: October 15, 2017 01:08PM
Quote
vision63
It should be extremely to fix. Constitutionally, there is no provision for "winner take all" regarding electors in the various states. The states took it upon themselves to deviate from the initial purpose of how electors are drawn and applied winner takes all.

Trump would have gotten more electoral votes if they were apportioned by congressional districts.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: vision63
Date: October 15, 2017 01:13PM
Quote
Speedy
Quote
vision63
It should be extremely to fix. Constitutionally, there is no provision for "winner take all" regarding electors in the various states. The states took it upon themselves to deviate from the initial purpose of how electors are drawn and applied winner takes all.

Trump would have gotten more electoral votes if they were apportioned by congressional districts.

But would the electors cast their votes "for" him? That's my whole point.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: JoeH
Date: October 15, 2017 06:12PM
Quote
vision63
It should be extremely to fix. Constitutionally, there is no provision for "winner take all" regarding electors in the various states. The states took it upon themselves to deviate from the initial purpose of how electors are drawn and applied winner takes all.

In the Constitution how the elections are run is left to the states. All the Constitution requires is that electors are not elected or appointed federal officials. The parties took it upon themselves to have the election of Electoral College electors be defined in each state as slates selected by the parties and the winner take all format in all but two states. They also sponsored bills penalizing "unfaithful electors", though the usual run of party hack put up for these slates are unlikely to go against their party. So that boat sailed over a century ago.

As for the "initial purpose", research has shown that it was as much about maintaining the Southern states influence and 1 3/5 vote advantage in Congress as anything else. There is a reason most of the early Presidents were from the slave holding states of the South, the Electoral College advantage helped to insure that. The purpose of having electors who could choose to vote other than for the person they were elected to support is mostly mentioned as an aside and really has only been cited as a primary reason for the Electoral College's existence since the middle of the last century.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: vision63
Date: October 15, 2017 11:15PM
Quote
JoeH
Quote
vision63
It should be extremely to fix. Constitutionally, there is no provision for "winner take all" regarding electors in the various states. The states took it upon themselves to deviate from the initial purpose of how electors are drawn and applied winner takes all.

In the Constitution how the elections are run is left to the states. All the Constitution requires is that electors are not elected or appointed federal officials. The parties took it upon themselves to have the election of Electoral College electors be defined in each state as slates selected by the parties and the winner take all format in all but two states. They also sponsored bills penalizing "unfaithful electors", though the usual run of party hack put up for these slates are unlikely to go against their party. So that boat sailed over a century ago.

As for the "initial purpose", research has shown that it was as much about maintaining the Southern states influence and 1 3/5 vote advantage in Congress as anything else. There is a reason most of the early Presidents were from the slave holding states of the South, the Electoral College advantage helped to insure that. The purpose of having electors who could choose to vote other than for the person they were elected to support is mostly mentioned as an aside and really has only been cited as a primary reason for the Electoral College's existence since the middle of the last century.

Sigh

Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: JoeH
Date: October 16, 2017 09:41AM
Alexander Hamilton Is just a single source, and that is his view from his political base in NY. However he is also glossing over and putting into the best light the compromises reached during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The Federalist Papers were written to support ratification of the Constitution as it came out of the convention. In his home state the Electoral College was already under attack with calls for it and similar aspects of the document to be immediately amended as a condition for ratification. So he was doing his best to argue for adoption of the Constitution as written, knowing that an immediate reopening of debate was not likely to succeed.

Ultimately the Electoral College as it was implemented during the convention traces back to the Virginia plan on how to elect a president. That called for the members of Congress to elect the executive, a body that already favored the slave holding states due to the there fifths compromise. Instead of the members of Congress, the Electoral College gave each state a number of electors equal to the number of members they had. Proposals that would have led to direct election which did not favor the South were not adopted.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: vision63
Date: October 16, 2017 10:02AM
Quote
JoeH
Alexander Hamilton Is just a single source, and that is his view from his political base in NY. However he is also glossing over and putting into the best light the compromises reached during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The Federalist Papers were written to support ratification of the Constitution as it came out of the convention. In his home state the Electoral College was already under attack with calls for it and similar aspects of the document to be immediately amended as a condition for ratification. So he was doing his best to argue for adoption of the Constitution as written, knowing that an immediate reopening of debate was not likely to succeed.

Ultimately the Electoral College as it was implemented during the convention traces back to the Virginia plan on how to elect a president. That called for the members of Congress to elect the executive, a body that already favored the slave holding states due to the there fifths compromise. Instead of the members of Congress, the Electoral College gave each state a number of electors equal to the number of members they had. Proposals that would have led to direct election which did not favor the South were not adopted.

The only reason there is an electoral college is for the reason I mentioned. So what if it got butchered?

Obamacare was intended to cover every American. You want to tell me how it got butchered. I'm telling you what it's original intent was.

Now that you've gone ahead and diminished Alexander Hamilton as just another voice, you know you're not going to end it, how would mend it?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: October 16, 2017 10:11AM
We got rid of the electoral college for all elections except President.

What is holding us back now?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: Lux Interior
Date: October 16, 2017 11:56AM
Quote
Lemon Drop
We got rid of the electoral college for all elections except President.

What is holding us back now?

It would have to be a bi-partisan effort and the last popularly elected republican president happened almost 30 years ago.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: rjmacs
Date: October 16, 2017 12:05PM
Quote
Lux Interior
Quote
Lemon Drop
We got rid of the electoral college for all elections except President.

What is holding us back now?

It would have to be a bi-partisan effort and the last popularly elected republican president happened almost 30 years ago.

Huh? 2004?



rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: JoeH
Date: October 16, 2017 01:14PM
Quote
vision63
Quote
JoeH
Alexander Hamilton Is just a single source, and that is his view from his political base in NY. However he is also glossing over and putting into the best light the compromises reached during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The Federalist Papers were written to support ratification of the Constitution as it came out of the convention. In his home state the Electoral College was already under attack with calls for it and similar aspects of the document to be immediately amended as a condition for ratification. So he was doing his best to argue for adoption of the Constitution as written, knowing that an immediate reopening of debate was not likely to succeed.

Ultimately the Electoral College as it was implemented during the convention traces back to the Virginia plan on how to elect a president. That called for the members of Congress to elect the executive, a body that already favored the slave holding states due to the there fifths compromise. Instead of the members of Congress, the Electoral College gave each state a number of electors equal to the number of members they had. Proposals that would have led to direct election which did not favor the South were not adopted.

The only reason there is an electoral college is for the reason I mentioned. So what if it got butchered?

Obamacare was intended to cover every American. You want to tell me how it got butchered. I'm telling you what it's original intent was.

Now that you've gone ahead and diminished Alexander Hamilton as just another voice, you know you're not going to end it, how would mend it?

Hamilton may be an important voice, but he is not the only voice on the creation of the Constitution. The reason you mentioned is effectively an afterthought, a justification, a reason presented to get others to ratify the Constitution in spite of flaws seen in it and objected to at the time. The reason you give was not a primary reason, but was an acceptable one. Many writers chose to put this reason in history texts and teach it in schools. It has effectively obfuscated the actual compromises made and gives cover to parts of the origin of the Electoral College.

As for mending it, all of the current proposals retain the flaw of overrepresentation in the College of the smaller states. Even the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is flawed, it is waiting on enough states to join. That is unlikely as most of the remaining states benefit under the current system. It will take decades probably before the Electoral College is eliminated or seriously modified.

In the meantime campaigns will have to remember the lessons of this election. They will have to remember t have a message for people in states they think are "safe", that polls can be misdirected or improperly analyzed. And they will have to remember to check what people inside a campaign are saying against outside sources. That last item might have saved the Clinton campaign some of those states lost by small margins, there were a number of persons who told them they were concerned about their kind of campaigning in that region of the mid-West.

One P.S. about Hamilton, it would have been interesting what he might have written in his later years from the vantage point of seeing how the Electoral College had work in the 1800 election and possibly after 1824 when most states went to winner-take-all. But he died in that 1804 duel.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/2017 01:20PM by JoeH.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heard Matt Taibbi speak this morning
Posted by: vision63
Date: October 17, 2017 12:19PM
Quote
JoeH
Quote
vision63
Quote
JoeH
Alexander Hamilton Is just a single source, and that is his view from his political base in NY. However he is also glossing over and putting into the best light the compromises reached during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The Federalist Papers were written to support ratification of the Constitution as it came out of the convention. In his home state the Electoral College was already under attack with calls for it and similar aspects of the document to be immediately amended as a condition for ratification. So he was doing his best to argue for adoption of the Constitution as written, knowing that an immediate reopening of debate was not likely to succeed.

Ultimately the Electoral College as it was implemented during the convention traces back to the Virginia plan on how to elect a president. That called for the members of Congress to elect the executive, a body that already favored the slave holding states due to the there fifths compromise. Instead of the members of Congress, the Electoral College gave each state a number of electors equal to the number of members they had. Proposals that would have led to direct election which did not favor the South were not adopted.

The only reason there is an electoral college is for the reason I mentioned. So what if it got butchered?

Obamacare was intended to cover every American. You want to tell me how it got butchered. I'm telling you what it's original intent was.

Now that you've gone ahead and diminished Alexander Hamilton as just another voice, you know you're not going to end it, how would mend it?

Hamilton may be an important voice, but he is not the only voice on the creation of the Constitution. The reason you mentioned is effectively an afterthought, a justification, a reason presented to get others to ratify the Constitution in spite of flaws seen in it and objected to at the time. The reason you give was not a primary reason, but was an acceptable one. Many writers chose to put this reason in history texts and teach it in schools. It has effectively obfuscated the actual compromises made and gives cover to parts of the origin of the Electoral College.

As for mending it, all of the current proposals retain the flaw of overrepresentation in the College of the smaller states. Even the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is flawed, it is waiting on enough states to join. That is unlikely as most of the remaining states benefit under the current system. It will take decades probably before the Electoral College is eliminated or seriously modified.

In the meantime campaigns will have to remember the lessons of this election. They will have to remember t have a message for people in states they think are "safe", that polls can be misdirected or improperly analyzed. And they will have to remember to check what people inside a campaign are saying against outside sources. That last item might have saved the Clinton campaign some of those states lost by small margins, there were a number of persons who told them they were concerned about their kind of campaigning in that region of the mid-West.

One P.S. about Hamilton, it would have been interesting what he might have written in his later years from the vantage point of seeing how the Electoral College had work in the 1800 election and possibly after 1824 when most states went to winner-take-all. But he died in that 1804 duel.

Hamilton/Madison were the most relevant voices regarding this issue in the Federalist Papers. Those other voices you mention, what money are they on? Where's their hit Broadway show?

You can tell me the same pedantic story about something like the 3/5ths compromise. Blah, Blah, Blah. The "original" purpose was to counter the part of the Constitution that said "All Men are created equal" How they hashed it out was the crime they and we had to live with. The "how" is no longer relevant. Eventually we "amended" it. That's the most relevant part.

Same thing with the Electoral College. Without the fear of popular "factions" as Madison put it that could grow into a potential plurality, there would not be an Electoral College concept on the table to debate in the first place. Period. We've lived with this Electoral College failure for centuries now and it's time to "amend" it.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 302
Record Number of Users: 52 on November 20, 2014
Record Number of Guests: 847 on February 04, 2015