2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[Sho]

It's religion, its all about the pomp and circumstance.

This I understand. I'm just mad that they are jumping the shark like a motherfucker, full well knowing that he's not that type of guy to revel in this type of thing because of his position. I mean, the fact that he turned down a high level lunch with lawmakers in favor of lunch with the homeless should have told people something. They have guest appearances by celebrities like they mean something and shit. Dancers and comedians and all of this nonsense, lol.

[Xantavia]

Romney vs Obama, show me how much dirt team Romney threw.

Romney essentially said Obama wasn't a very good president, didn't like his economics or foreign policy, but a nice guy. Overall message, good guy bad president.

Obama's team said that Mitt Romney wants to "put ya'll back in chains", Mitt Romney is fighting a war on women and has even compiled binders full of women to help with his war, Mitt Romney is the kind of guy who would specifically fire someone so that 5 years later his wife would die of cancer lacking health insurance. A rich guy that hates you and chains his dog to the roof of his car. Hillary slung more shit at Obama than Romney did.

Good thing no republicans ever accused Obama of being a secret Kenyan Muslim terrorist who was a member of a hate-filled Christian church who was busy setting up death panels so he could kill your grandparents.

[Marootsoobutsu]

Gerrymandering. Google it.

Has amounted to maybe 6-7 seats for Republicans right now. So, they'd have 240 to 195 instead of what they have now-- there is a lot of natural districting, and issues with voter-rounding and single-seat states distorting the Democrat-vote % vs. house-seat % right now (example: Mississippi voted 35% Democrat, which would round to 1 seat of Mississippi's 4 for them, which they have, but still leaves 10% of their voters not-represented). Then you get states like Illinois and Pennsylvania, where you have extreme concentration of Democrats in one or two areas, while most of the state is spread out R-- so Pennsylvania looks very gerrymandered, and may be to an extent, but it's overwhelmed by the concentrations as well. If you look at the 2012 election, Obama won less than 25% of all counties-- that's not going to be friendly when it comes to house wins. But he SMASHED the cities, with something like an 80% voter majority in those major cities-- which, again, is going to lead to extreme victories for a few Democrat representatives in very natural terms. To get specific on Pennsylvania, which seems the worst gerrymandering offender, Democrats would have had enormous numbers of wasted votes in Philly and Pitt, just because of how overwhelmingly Democratic they are, while the rest of the state is comfortably, but no where near overwhelmingly, Republican. You see a lot of the same thing throughout the country: large cities tend to be extremely overwhelmingly Democratic, while rural and suburban areas tend to be comfortably, but not overwhelmingly, Republican. You could look at Maryland for a case of redistricting that has given more house-weight to the cities, but then... Maryland has 1 Republican, when its state-wide vote says it should have 3 (well, 2.8), so maybe that's not the best case.

I'm not saying it isn't a problem-- 7 seats is seven seats, and if it doesn't matter much right NOW, it could well matter in closer election years-- but it isn't as big a problem as I've heard a lot of folks complaining about. And it's not lopsided: this time, Republicans had the edge, but in 1981 and 1991, Democrats had it. It's not a one-party-or-another thing; it's something that's been batted back and forth like a ball for the last 240 years.

[Tyche]

The idea that the key structural factors are because democrats are heavily concentrated in urban areas is simply not true. You'll find much more info that counters most of what you say in that article, including an estimated 12ish seat swing in just 9 states.

[kuronosan]

Um. The mental gymnastics in those last few posts is enough to beat Russia for gold in the next Olympics. What in the utter fuck.

[Acevalefor]

Word on the street is that Trump actually has a good chance of getting the Republican nomination unless the party gets their shit together and brings a viable alternative to the table. The other candidates are busy ostracizing themselves from large voter blocs with their rhetoric about internet security, weed, and healthcare. Trump's crazy is just a show and he is just likeable enough for Republicans that he has a chance with the current field.

[Sho]

Poll out today shows Trump and Carson running neck and neck now:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/politi...016/index.html

21% Trump, 20% Carson, but within margin of error. Fiorina & Rubio 11%, Bush 7%, Kasich 6%, Cruz 5%. Everyone else less than 3%. Dudes below the 5% cut off better start dropping out of the race or they will start to lose serious money, lol.

[Tyche]

I don't get Carson, at all.

[archibaldcrane]

I don't get Carson, at all.

I think he appeals to evangelicals who want an outsider, but I'm not sure.

[Ksandra]

This I understand. I'm just mad that they are jumping the shark like a motherfucker, full well knowing that he's not that type of guy to revel in this type of thing because of his position. I mean, the fact that he turned down a high level lunch with lawmakers in favor of lunch with the homeless should have told people something. They have guest appearances by celebrities like they mean something and shit. Dancers and comedians and all of this nonsense, lol.

We need a Pope thread, but holy fuck I do not understand some of the vitrol people have towards this man. I think needing more action towards the child molesters is a very very valid criticism, and I don't fault people for not liking him for that. But to think the guy is satan on earth for kissing a disabled boy boggles my fucking mind.

[Quicklet]

Welcome to post-Obama politics, where it's okay to demonize anything and everything that doesn't conform to your perception of reality.

[Tyche]

Atheist liberals love the pope more than evangelical conservatives lol. At least fox news makes it seem that way. I love how Shep Smith spit hot fire at his colleagues over their comments about the pope.

[Tyrath]

Bleh I don't see why agreeing with accepted science gets the Pope lauded as a huge progressive. Is the bar for Christians that low? He's still the head of a corrupt organization that protects child molesters.

This one atheist liberal does not love the Pope. But it amuses me that the same conservatives who invoke god in everything are angry at the head of the religion.

[notorious bum]

Take this socialism, bitch.

Spoiler: show

[archibaldcrane]

Bleh I don't see why agreeing with accepted science gets the Pope lauded as a huge progressive. Is the bar for Christians that low? He's still the head of a corrupt organization that protects child molesters.

This one atheist liberal does not love the Pope.

It sounds like you wouldn't like any pope regardless of his words or actions though.

[Ksandra]

But it amuses me that the same conservatives who invoke god in everything are angry at the head of the religion.

I don't think you understand who the Pope is or how evangelicals view Catholicism.

[Gredival]

Atheist liberals love the pope more than evangelical conservatives lol. At least fox news makes it seem that way. I love how Shep Smith spit hot fire at his colleagues over their comments about the pope.

Bleh I don't see why agreeing with accepted science gets the Pope lauded as a huge progressive.

At this point, Francis could be considered liberal on pretty much every social issue but abortion/birth control.

But Catholicism has actually always been very critical of capitalism, but this is the first time that a Pope made economic equality a "central" message of the papacy. Similarly, the Vatican previously said there is no conflict between belief in God and evolution, but this is the first time a Pope just outright said evolution is real.

Basically the praise is for how Francis has decided to prioritize the different messages of the Church. And it's being interpreted as "politicization" or a "leftist agenda"

Is the bar for Christians that low?

Yes. It's like Boehner. On an absolute scale, there's still a lot left to desire, but on a relative scale you can't complain about the alternatives.

He's still the head of a corrupt organization that protects child molesters.

Arguably more Benedict's fault.

[Tyrath]

Yes. It's like Boehner. On an absolute scale, there's still a lot left to desire, but on a relative scale you can't complain about the alternatives.

I get the logic behind this, but I refuse to applaud people for not being totally terrible.

The Pope is basically a good PR machine. He has progressive messages but he doesn't do a whole lot. I've had this argument on BG before so I'm gonna leave it at that.

[Dimmauk]

I get the logic behind this, but I refuse to applaud people for not being totally terrible.

The Pope is basically a good PR machine. He has progressive messages but he doesn't do a whole lot. I've had this argument on BG before so I'm gonna leave it at that.

I had to go to catholic church today as part of my yearly birthday gift to my mother. There was a different tone to this mass, compared to others that ive been too. Past masses were about abortion, and liberals, but today they actually prayed for rich corporation to give more money to the poor. There was also a giving center for people to donate whatever they wanted. This new pope is making a difference.

[Tyrath]

If you think changing up prayer for a week makes a difference I have a bridge to sell you.