5 ms·

And any elected politicians or major thought leaders in 2016 who told those voters the election was stolen or fed their paranoia about the candidate's lies shou

And any elected politicians or major thought leaders in 2016 who told those voters the election was stolen or fed their paranoia about the candidate's lies should absolutely have been censured in exactly this way. There really weren't any. And that's why this is important. Our leaders need to behave like grownups.

cmurf 6y ago
Yes, but behaving like grownups no longer activates enough Republican voters to win presidential elections with a clear majority. 1996 to 2020, only in 2004 did the Republican candidate get a majority of the votes. Over that time period, Republican primary voters have evicted moderate Republicans in the House, and have started to successfully evict them from the Senate. The state GOP twitter accounts for Arizona, Oregon, and Hawaii have continued to peddle conspiracy theories, post-January 6. Arizona GOP have censured three Republicans for insufficient fealty to Trump: the widow of Sen. John McCain, former Sen. Jeff Flake, and the current governor. Senators Toomey, Portman, and Burr, all Republicans, are not running for re-election. It's not due to partisanship between Republicans and Democrats, but within the Republican party. They are all moderate Trump supporters, but that's not good enough now. Senators report a significant pressure campaign, very angry Republican constituents insisting upon a Trump acquittal no matter what, even including death threats. The pressure campaign is probably working, as evidenced by jurors claiming Trump himself attacked Republicans, who wouldn't help him overturn the election, far worse than Democrats who were never part of the fold in the first place. The impeachment trial and conviction vote will demonstrate the degree to which the Republican party is really the Trump party, perhaps most especially the party of Trumpian primary voters.
- rayiner 6y ago
  > 1996 to 2020, only in 2004 did the Republican candidate get a majority of the votes. Nobody cares about the popular vote. The electoral college incentivizes Republicans to campaign in states that don’t necessarily yield a ton of popular votes, and disincentizes them from campaigning in states like California that have a lot of votes. The President popular vote simply doesn’t reflect what the results would be if people were actually trying to win the popular vote. Republicans routinely win the House popular vote, where these incentives to go after smaller states don’t exist, and there is an incentive to campaign in the red counties of blue states. Republicans won the House popular vote 8 times since 1992. Democrats won the House popular vote 6 times. In particular, Republicans won the House popular vote in both 2000 and 2016. Do you think Bush and Trump couldn’t have matched the popular vote share of congressional Republicans if they had an incentive to campaign in every red House district in California? Folks love to speculate about alternative election systems where we used a direct popular vote. But if we’re imagining a counter-factual scenario with a different election system, why that one? Direct election of the executive is unusual. Nearly every developed country chooses the executive based on who gets the majority in the legislature. Under that system, we would have had even more Republican executives (16 years) and less Democratic executives (12 years) since 1992.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > In particular, Republicans won the House popular vote in both 2000 and 2016. Do you think Bush and Trump couldn’t have matched the popular vote share of congressional Republicans Those aren't independent variables, though. Those elections are on the same ballot. In fact the republican house vote in 2016 was about 3M votes less than Clinton got. So... no, Trump wouldn't have been able to win the popular vote in that election merely by getting all the votes republicans got in the house. Because he already got them. Lots of voters voted for Trump in those competetive house districts who didn't cast a vote for a representative at all. I know that argument sounds good, but it doesn't work numerically.
hairofadog 6y ago
I mean there are many many differences between complaints about the 2016 election and the 2020 election: * The Republican presidential candidate won in 2016 despite losing the popular vote by a huge margin * There was ample evidence of the malfeasance being complained about in the 2016 election, while there was no evidence of the malfeasance being complained about in the 2020 election * The people who complained of a 'stolen' election in 2016 were pushing for reforms, and the protests were peaceful, while the people who complained about a 'stolen' election in 2020 were pushing for a violent overthrow of the democratic process, and there was subsequently an attempt to violently overthrow the democratic process. I say all this as someone who is a cynic at heart, and I do my best to avoid hyperbolic media from either extreme on the political spectrum (and opinion pieces altogether), and to pay for and consume media that challenges my biases: Not everything is equal. Sometimes one of the options is worse than the other.
- rayiner 6y ago
  > The Republican presidential candidate won in 2016 despite losing the popular vote by a huge margin The 2 point margin between Trump and Clinton was less than the margin between Bush and Kerry in 2004. Neither candidate cleared 50%. Clinton “won” the popular vote with a lower total percentage than Kerry lost the popular vote in 2004. Also, these counter-factual are irrelevant. The popular vote doesn’t matter because nobody is trying to win the popular vote. That’s why Clinton didn’t campaign in Wisconsin (where Obama had racked up a huge margin in 2008 and 2012.) And that’s why Trump didn’t campaign in California. Changing the voting system would change how people campaign, so the popular vote tells you nothing. Also, if we moved to a “modern” voting system, we would use a run-off, like other countries have. Trump still might have won without the large libertarian vote eliminated. > * There was ample evidence of the malfeasance being complained about in the 2016 election, while there was no evidence of the malfeasance being complained about in the 2020 election Not in 2017 there wasn’t. > * The people who complained of a 'stolen' election in 2016 were pushing for reforms So were many of the people objecting to the 2020 election. With a Democratic House the objections were futile. They were symbolic.
  - hairofadog 6y ago

cmurf 6y ago

Yes, but behaving like grownups no longer activates enough Republican voters to win presidential elections with a clear majority. 1996 to 2020, only in 2004 did the Republican candidate get a majority of the votes. Over that time period, Republican primary voters have evicted moderate Republicans in the House, and have started to successfully evict them from the Senate. The state GOP twitter accounts for Arizona, Oregon, and Hawaii have continued to peddle conspiracy theories, post-January 6. Arizona GOP have censured three Republicans for insufficient fealty to Trump: the widow of Sen. John McCain, former Sen. Jeff Flake, and the current governor. Senators Toomey, Portman, and Burr, all Republicans, are not running for re-election. It's not due to partisanship between Republicans and Democrats, but within the Republican party. They are all moderate Trump supporters, but that's not good enough now. Senators report a significant pressure campaign, very angry Republican constituents insisting upon a Trump acquittal no matter what, even including death threats. The pressure campaign is probably working, as evidenced by jurors claiming Trump himself attacked Republicans, who wouldn't help him overturn the election, far worse than Democrats who were never part of the fold in the first place. The impeachment trial and conviction vote will demonstrate the degree to which the Republican party is really the Trump party, perhaps most especially the party of Trumpian primary voters.

rayiner 6y ago
> 1996 to 2020, only in 2004 did the Republican candidate get a majority of the votes. Nobody cares about the popular vote. The electoral college incentivizes Republicans to campaign in states that don’t necessarily yield a ton of popular votes, and disincentizes them from campaigning in states like California that have a lot of votes. The President popular vote simply doesn’t reflect what the results would be if people were actually trying to win the popular vote. Republicans routinely win the House popular vote, where these incentives to go after smaller states don’t exist, and there is an incentive to campaign in the red counties of blue states. Republicans won the House popular vote 8 times since 1992. Democrats won the House popular vote 6 times. In particular, Republicans won the House popular vote in both 2000 and 2016. Do you think Bush and Trump couldn’t have matched the popular vote share of congressional Republicans if they had an incentive to campaign in every red House district in California? Folks love to speculate about alternative election systems where we used a direct popular vote. But if we’re imagining a counter-factual scenario with a different election system, why that one? Direct election of the executive is unusual. Nearly every developed country chooses the executive based on who gets the majority in the legislature. Under that system, we would have had even more Republican executives (16 years) and less Democratic executives (12 years) since 1992.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > In particular, Republicans won the House popular vote in both 2000 and 2016. Do you think Bush and Trump couldn’t have matched the popular vote share of congressional Republicans Those aren't independent variables, though. Those elections are on the same ballot. In fact the republican house vote in 2016 was about 3M votes less than Clinton got. So... no, Trump wouldn't have been able to win the popular vote in that election merely by getting all the votes republicans got in the house. Because he already got them. Lots of voters voted for Trump in those competetive house districts who didn't cast a vote for a representative at all. I know that argument sounds good, but it doesn't work numerically.

hairofadog 6y ago

I mean there are many many differences between complaints about the 2016 election and the 2020 election: * The Republican presidential candidate won in 2016 despite losing the popular vote by a huge margin * There was ample evidence of the malfeasance being complained about in the 2016 election, while there was no evidence of the malfeasance being complained about in the 2020 election * The people who complained of a 'stolen' election in 2016 were pushing for reforms, and the protests were peaceful, while the people who complained about a 'stolen' election in 2020 were pushing for a violent overthrow of the democratic process, and there was subsequently an attempt to violently overthrow the democratic process. I say all this as someone who is a cynic at heart, and I do my best to avoid hyperbolic media from either extreme on the political spectrum (and opinion pieces altogether), and to pay for and consume media that challenges my biases: Not everything is equal. Sometimes one of the options is worse than the other.

rayiner 6y ago
> The Republican presidential candidate won in 2016 despite losing the popular vote by a huge margin The 2 point margin between Trump and Clinton was less than the margin between Bush and Kerry in 2004. Neither candidate cleared 50%. Clinton “won” the popular vote with a lower total percentage than Kerry lost the popular vote in 2004. Also, these counter-factual are irrelevant. The popular vote doesn’t matter because nobody is trying to win the popular vote. That’s why Clinton didn’t campaign in Wisconsin (where Obama had racked up a huge margin in 2008 and 2012.) And that’s why Trump didn’t campaign in California. Changing the voting system would change how people campaign, so the popular vote tells you nothing. Also, if we moved to a “modern” voting system, we would use a run-off, like other countries have. Trump still might have won without the large libertarian vote eliminated. > * There was ample evidence of the malfeasance being complained about in the 2016 election, while there was no evidence of the malfeasance being complained about in the 2020 election Not in 2017 there wasn’t. > * The people who complained of a 'stolen' election in 2016 were pushing for reforms So were many of the people objecting to the 2020 election. With a Democratic House the objections were futile. They were symbolic.
- hairofadog 6y ago