SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the just-line-up-the-sights-on-your-toe-and-squeeeeeeze dept.
Here in the U.S., the presidential election season, like Christmas, seems to start earlier and earlier each time.
In keeping with this, the Democratic National Committee is making waves by announcing that it will exclude Fox News, which has the largest viewership of the major cable news networks by a considerable margin, from debate coverage of DNC presidential candidates.
Thomas Lifson outlines a number of reasons this may not be a good move.
One is that from a historical and strategy perspective:
Presidential debates inevitably favor the challengers. Trump can push them in that direction by agreeing to debates only if Fox News is included. That forces them to either accept FNC or have no debates at all. If they accept, that makes FNC the debate worth watching. The rest are discredited as Democrat "safe spaces,"
And it appears he has pounced and done exactly that from his twitter account:
Democrats just blocked @FoxNews from holding a debate. Good, then I think I’ll do the same thing with the Fake News Networks and the Radical Left Democrats in the General Election debates!
Really all either party has to do is A) not be crazy and/or B) keep their idiot mouths shut to win.
Neither of these seems to be in the cards dealt to either side, so it should be a heck of a ride.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @05:13PM (43 children)
Well Trump was not elected by any majority except the electoral college so your point is not even applicable. Also everything the AC said was accurate sooooo yaaaaa, not sure what else to add that wouldn't come off as a simple ad-hom attack.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @05:34PM
And if HRC had won, she too would not have had a majority of all votes. Both candidates had something less than 50% of the vote.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 11 2019, @05:48PM (22 children)
Wah, wah! The electoral college keeps us from employing tyranny of the majority! It's not fair!
No shit, Sherlock. That's why we have it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @05:59PM (2 children)
"Your opinion is not the majority opinion but you can't comprehend anyone else disagreeing, so your actions are all predicated on a falsehood."
TMB is epically dumb, news at 11 (except on Fox, the unNetwork for unfair and unbalanced news)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 12 2019, @03:49AM (1 child)
You and math are not friends, are you? 50% is not a majority. It is at best a plurality.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 12 2019, @04:01PM
Aww poor buzzy, yet again can't see the point and lashes out mistakenly.
(Score: 3, Informative) by number11 on Monday March 11 2019, @06:35PM (12 children)
Nah. We have it due to 18th century political horse-trading, to get the pissant states that nobody lived in on board with the Constitution. Being as there weren't any plans at the time to let people actually vote for the President (your state legislature would take care of that, you dumb peasant) it doesn't have anything to do with "tyranny of the majority".
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @07:06PM (2 children)
Pissant state occupant here: fuck off and grow your own damn food.
(Score: 2) by number11 on Monday March 11 2019, @11:31PM (1 child)
I live in a pretty pissant state, too. We grow food (and more importantly, alcohol). Don't feel that sense of entitlement that you do, though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 12 2019, @02:20AM
No sense of entitlement? Is that what your rant against flyover country not voting correctly was about?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Oakenshield on Monday March 11 2019, @07:11PM (4 children)
Did you even read what you wrote? Why do you think those "pissant" states that nobody lived in wanted these particular horse-trades? To prevent the "tyranny of the majority". Representatives are fielded based upon population. Why would they cede self determination to a populous state just to be a part of this new Constitution? I'm guessing logic was not in your curricula.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @09:20PM
Come now, please don't try to induce critical thinking into rote learning dude/dudette, heads will explode...
(Score: 3, Informative) by number11 on Monday March 11 2019, @11:26PM (2 children)
You seem to think that "self-determination" is for governmental units, rather than for humans. I dunno, maybe that made sense in an era where citizens were not permitted to vote for the President anyhow. Are you suggesting we go back to having state legislatures elect electors, who then get to vote on who'll be President? Are you that afraid of what the will of the people is?
Electoral votes are not based on population. California has one electoral vote per 719K inhabitants. Wyoming has one electoral vote per 193K inhabitants. So a Wyoming citizen's vote counts the same as 3.7 California citizen's votes in a Presidential election. Sounds more like "tyranny of the minority" to me. Granted, those two states are the most extreme cases.
(Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday March 12 2019, @12:42AM
Electoral votes are based on the closest approximation to the population of each state, given the conditions that each state always gets at least one rep, and the total number of reps is set at 435, AND each state gets two votes because of Senate representation (the latter distribution in the upper house is what really skews things).
Had we continued following the scheme the founders expected we'd have a much, much larger lower house legislature with better approximations to population.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 13 2019, @04:08AM
California has an unfairly large share in proportion to the number of US citizens living in California. Basically, the state is cheating by welcoming illegals. That gives them a couple dozen undeserved electoral votes and members of the house.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @08:14PM
Congratulations on the most tone-deaf SN comment of the day. With an attitude like that, it's no wonder those "peasants" in "pissant states" think the Democratic Party is full of condescending big-city fucks who look down on them. Have fun earning Trump another four years in office because you couldn't grow up and look at the world outside your narcissistic tech bubble.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday March 12 2019, @12:36AM (2 children)
Uh, the reason why they wouldn't do a direct vote for president was absolutely to avoid tyranny of the majority (otherwise known as "mob rule" or direct democracy, which the Founders abhorred for very good historical reasons).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 12 2019, @01:54AM (1 child)
It is incredible at how many idiots with no knowledge of history who think they have some insightful knowledge on how democracy should work based solely on the other idiots in their echo chamber. You know things are really bad when people who should know better - like Hillary Clinton - start advocating for abolishing the Electoral College just because it worked as designed and against her personal interests. I fear for this country. We are bringing up a whole generation of complete utter retards.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 12 2019, @08:05AM
So true. And you only need to look in the mirror every morning to reinforce this insight.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:22AM (5 children)
Yes, the tyranny of the minority is so much better. Perhaps you should have a dictator and take the tyranny of the minority to the max.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:31AM (4 children)
Sorry but it doesn't work that way. No matter who is President, which is the only thing the electoral college deals with, whoever has the most people has the most votes in congress. Tyranny of the minority isn't an actual possibility, only a minimal check on majority power is.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:57AM (3 children)
For some weird reason you guys have also limited your number of representatives to 435 for close to a hundred years, which also works to give the minority more power, including electoral votes.
Imagine if Article the 1st had passed (and it still could, Article the 2nd did).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 12 2019, @12:39PM (2 children)
Yes, that's by design. Tyranny of the majority was a major concern for our founders and tyranny of the minority isn't a realistic worry.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 12 2019, @04:05PM
The worst years in recent history were presided over by minority votes. Try joining us here in reality someday.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:41PM
How is tyranny of the minority not a realistic concern? Tyranny is tyranny even if it is the type that you like.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 11 2019, @06:03PM (18 children)
Oh, FFS, 51% vs 49% is not a "clear majority", nor does it amount to that old worn-out "mandate" bullshit. Less than half of eligible Americans bother to vote. Some of the vote (mine, for instance) went to third party voters. Euros like to tell us that "first past the post" is a well and truly fucked up way of doing democracy.
IF, HRC had won something like 60% of the vote, you might have a legitimate complaint. She didn't. In such a close race, the electoral college decides. It's been that way since long before ANY of us was born, including that ancient harridan, and the equally ancient court fool who ran against each other.
Now, WILL YOU stop your sniveling?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @06:29PM (10 children)
Except that one EC voter decided to vote for HRC instead of DJT and they were overruled and told to vote how their district did. So it turns out the EC is really just a tool to enable gerrymandering, AKA election fraud.
Keep dreaming you snotty child.
DJT won for one reason only, HRC stole the election from Sanders which alienated a good portion of her base. Similarly, the reason DJT won the GOP primary is almost opposite: typical GOP politicians alienated their base and DJT sold them exactly the lines they wanted to hear. Once they bought into his shtick he was able to play them for chumps and so here we are. Same chumps still trying to defend him, just incredible.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 11 2019, @06:42PM (2 children)
Congrats. You have a more realistic view of things than at least half of the Dems in this country.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @06:46PM (1 child)
And you are batshit crazy with occasional glimpses of reason.
We were being honest with each other right?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 11 2019, @06:52PM
Honest? About the bastshit? Well, yes, of course.
(Score: 5, Disagree) by number11 on Monday March 11 2019, @06:53PM (6 children)
Nah. He won for a number of reasons, of which yours is only one. There's also the Russian influence, and the fact that DJT made for far more interesting news stories for the media. There was a revulsion at the concepts of dynasty (which we'd already suffered with the bushes) and the arrogance of power, of "it's her turn" and the abuses of "the establishment". There's sexism. There's the fact that HRC had already been demonized by the right for 20 years. There's that DJT's PR and TV experience allowed him to play the common man, but yet incredibly successful, the perfect celebrity. Most of these reasons weren't enough to tip the election on their own, but they combined in a perfect storm.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 12 2019, @01:20AM
"Russian influence."
Drink the koolaid much?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 12 2019, @03:55AM
Mostly it was a whole bunch of "We're fed the fuck up with The Establishment. Ditto political correctness taken to insane levels." Nothing Hillary could have said or done would have overcome either of those issues. Everything Cheeto Jesus said and did spoke directly to them. Learn this and run someone palatable to the 49% of the nation who think CJ is doing a good job or lose again, your choice.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Tuesday March 12 2019, @04:19AM (2 children)
"Russian influence"? You mean the $2000 troll farm ad campaign Facebook testified to congress about... the one desperate security people said was indicative of interferance? Or the discredited Steele dossier? Or the faux "Russian" bots shown actually to be planted by ex intelligence guys trying to pump security software sales? You mean those conspiracy theories even Mueller has had to come out to squash lately? The "Russian influence" Obamas former FBI debuty chief said he was almost certain was bogus in the Washington Post? And the Mueller investigation the media has told the world to "reduce expectations" about?
(Score: 2) by number11 on Wednesday March 13 2019, @07:48PM (1 child)
Boy, the "Russian" thing certainly seemed to touch people's nerves. Especially the people working for the Russians, and the rightwingers who now love Russia because it irritates liberals.
I don't have any doubt that Russia tried. From Putin's perspective, we're a hostile country and that's the sort of thing intelligence services do. I don't blame them for that, that's their job, same as messing with other people's elections is the CIA's job. Was it effective? I don't think very, though their stuff may have increased everyone's level of irritability. (At the beginning, that was probably their goal.) Of course it's hard to know for sure. Like I said, there were a bunch of minor factors that together may have made the difference.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Friday March 15 2019, @12:38AM
Wow...
Facebook, the former FBI deputy head, many NSA/CIA/FBI whistleblowers including the top codebreaker during the cold war Bill Binney (Bill and many others have even formed a group that call themselves "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity")... they're all on the Russian payroll eh? Russian agents, yeah? Or if not on the payroll, at the very least stooges eh? Those stupid/unintelligent mofos... They don't sound informed at all. ;)
All the while blatant out-in-the-open collusion happens eg. Obama being overridden by Netanyahu in his speech and standing ovation before Congress. If the Israel Lobby isn't foreign collusion what is it? Compare and contrast actual evidence for Russian interferance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 12 2019, @08:24AM
The big one that most democrats dismiss, because they "don't military", is the email server.
There are upwards of a million americans with a security clearance, ask any one of them what would have happened to them if they did one tenth of what she did to break security. They will tell you that they would still be locked up.
That's a million pissed off people who think she is lying, corrupt and used power/influence to escape justice. They not only won't vote for her, they will vote against her, against her party, and discourage other people if they can. That whole flippant "with a cloth" attitude cost her the election.
Just imagine, next time a cop is standing there writing you a speeding ticket for 10 over the limit, that a drunk HRC goes screaming past in a T-Bird doing 50 over and waving a bottle of vodka. The cop looks and says, yeah you're getting a ticket, but she's allowed to do that because she's rich and powerful. Still going to vote for her?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Monday March 11 2019, @10:03PM (6 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 12 2019, @03:59AM (5 children)
Doesn't surprise me. Dems congregate heavily in the more populated states; primarily in the largest cities even. That's their choice though. It's not like there aren't tons and tons of other places to live, most of which are much more enjoyable to live in.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 12 2019, @10:03AM (4 children)
De-gerrymandering simulations have repeatedly shown that the 5% bias almost completely disappears when districts shaped like serpents are abolished. The whole idea of having winners being allowed to redistrict after their victories *shocks* people from every even vaguely functioning democracy in the world (no need for the word "other" in there, the US does not have even a vaguely functioning democracy) - that should be a warning sign that maybe your system's broken.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 12 2019, @12:41PM (3 children)
Who would you have redraw districts when populations change? It's not like you're ever going to find an impartial third party. They pretty much don't exist when power is on the line.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 12 2019, @12:57PM (2 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 12 2019, @01:50PM (1 child)
That would be the fatal flaw in your proposition, yes. We don't do bipartisan round these parts anymore. If one party declares they like puppies, the other takes up puppy stomping reflexively.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 12 2019, @02:50PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves