5 ms·

I remember when Obama got elected in 2008, all the pundits were gleefully explaining how he was a master of social media and had this expert team of young digit

by avalys 5y ago

I remember when Obama got elected in 2008, all the pundits were gleefully explaining how he was a master of social media and had this expert team of young digital natives who had used big data to target their bring out the vote efforts, blah blah blah, and how the doddering old Republicans were going to be left in the dust and would never win an election again.

birken 5y ago
Well to be fair, Democrats won in "landslides" in 2008, 2012 and 2020.
- skippyboxedhero 5y ago
  And then their main opponent was removed from all social media. Masterful work. Real politics. That is how you win.
  - kajecounterhack 5y ago
    Their main opponent also tried to stage a coup. And for years, this person wasn't removed despite many other posts that would have otherwised violated ToS -- special treatment for being a head of state. So there's some context to this quip.
    - Mikeb85 5y ago
      > Their main opponent also tried to stage a coup. Please, calling it a coup is a joke. France has larger demonstrations almost monthly (at least during non-Covid times), I've seen larger riots in the aftermath of hockey games. It was a few rednecks rioting...
      - timkpaine 5y ago
        A few rednecks, millionaires, members of congress, family of Supreme Court justices, White House staff....
      - kajecounterhack 5y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_United_States_Capitol_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_United_States_Capitol_att... Read the article. It wasn't a "few rednecks rioting" -- there were two pipe bombs. Elected representatives were in actual danger; capitol police were struggling to hold back the participants. That the "rednecks rioting" were so poorly organized doesn't make it any less a coup. Our elected officials were being sheltered in windowless rooms.
        usrn 5y ago
        Funny the pipe bomb guy wasn't caught despite how easy it should be to find him. Funny the guy who encouraged everyone to go to the capital (despite the almost universal disagreement) hasn't testified.
        mumblemumble 5y ago
        Also, the stated purpose was to subvert the democratic process and install their figurehead as leader. I don't know that I'd call it an attempted coup, either, because that gives them too much credit. They weren't particularly well organized, and didn't seem to know what to do once they breached the capitol building. That said, it doesn't really matter that the gilets jaunes were protesting for longer and in larger numbers; directly comparing them is a category error. The gilet jaunes were operating within the norms of how French civil society currently operates. The Capitol protesters/insurgents/whatever were expressly trying to overturn them. Maybe not a coup, maybe not treason, but sedition at the very least.
      - jkubicek 5y ago
        A few rednecks whipped into a frenzy by the actual President of the US and backed by his supporters in congress who were attempting to overturn the election. We can't let the laughable ineptitude of these people distract us; they may not be so freakin' stupid the next time they attempt to overthrow our duly elected representatives.
        Mikeb85 5y ago
        > We can't let the laughable ineptitude of these people distract us We definitely can. The whole world laughs at the US when they call it a coup. We've seen plenty of real coups in our lifetime, this ain't it.
      - taylodl 5y ago
        Technically you're right - it was an attempted coup.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Please, calling it a coup is a joke. France has larger demonstrations almost monthly Coup attempts are not defined by crowd size.
        Mikeb85 5y ago
        No they're usually defined by military and government officials taking over institutions to overthrow the elected government. None of which happened. And when crowds do lead to governments being overthrown, usually it's crowds in the millions encouraging those institutions to overthrow the government. Again which didn't happen. By any definition it wasn't a coup d'état or even an attempt at anything with a chance of success.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > No they're usually defined by military and government officials taking over institutions to overthrow the elected government. No, a coup doesn't have to be by military and government officials (though they are usually best situated, and in any case were involved in the autocoup attempt of which the attack on the Capitol was a part—but neither the whole, the beginning, or necessarily even the end once it failed.) And a coup attempt can (this specific subtype is called a self-coup, autocoup, or autogolpe) seek to irregularly extend the powers or the term of the current leadership, not overthrow anyone already in power, and this is what the one involving the 1/6 attack was. And a coup attempt doesn't always involve taking over anything, in the same way a murder attempt doesn't always produce a dead body.
        Mikeb85 5y ago
        By this logic I could gather 10 friends from the pub, go to a government building, break a few windows, say we want to overthrow the government, then go home and call it an attempted coup. Really though, that's never been successful and calling it an attempt is being extremely generous. It's like saying writing a Tweet is an attempt at writing a novel.
        5y ago
    - skippyboxedhero 5y ago
      A coup? Seriously? Have you seen what a coup looks like? They usually involve armies and mass executions, it isn't some shirtless guy in a headdress. Again though, this is exactly my point. I am not from the US. I couldn't really care less. But the problem is that someone's obviously ludicrous subjective interpretation of an event is being stated as an objective fact, and then applied by social media. Do you not see how this can backfire on you? In other words, you have no problem when it is being rigged against people you don't like but how are you going to respond when it is rigged against you? This is the reason we have courts. This is the reason we have free speech. It is indivisible, applied to everyone equally. None of his posts violated ToS (there are people on Twitter who are orchestrating genocide), you just don't like them.
      - markoman 5y ago
        Earlier this year the DoJ charged Stewart Rhodes and 10 other Oath Keepers members with seditious conspiracy for allegedly plotting to prevent by force the transfer of presidential power to Joe Biden. A number of these conspirators were involved in the siege of the Capitol on 01/06/21. Court papers say the group also had weapons stashed at a hotel nearby in Virginia and a quick reaction force ready to ferry them into Washington, D.C., if Rhodes gave the order. A magistrate judge in Texas ordered that Rhodes remain in jail pending trial. Federal code defines seditious conspiracy as two or more people conspiring to overthrow or destroy by force the United States government, or to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any U.S. law.
        freedomben 5y ago
        It sounds like you're arguing a different issue than GP was replying to (unless your contention is that Trump was leading the Oath Keepers). They replied to: > Their main opponent also tried to stage a coup. But that said it still seems like a real stretch to me to say that the US federal government was so weak that there was ever a serious risk of 10 idiots overthrowing it and installing their guy. It seems like the word "coup" is somewhat meaningless if the same word is used to describe highly organized government takeovers by military leaders, as well as a small group of yokels that didn't even know what to do when they got into the capital building so started walking around taking pictures like tourists. I don't know what word I would use instead, probably "riot" or maybe even "rebellion" (actually, Shay's Rebellion seems way worse than what this was), but "coup" has never felt right to me. Also worth pointing out I think is that they've been charged with seditious conspiracy (which I agree is a big deal) but none have been convicted (yet). Prosecutorial overreach is a huge problem in our country that needs to change. (to be clear I'm not saying this is a case of prosecutorial overreach, I honestly don't know. But it is certainly possible given how widespread it is in general in the US). Especially hard hit bit it are marginalized groups that can't adequately defend themselves. I've seen cases where the prosecutor didn't think they stood a chance of getting a conviction but they wanted a plea deal so they charged him with as much as possible to scare him into a guilty plea so they didn't have to go to trial. It also shouldn't be overlooked that there is a massive political incentive for the current people in power to paint this as much as possible as "a coup." Selfishly I do hope they succeed, because I think Trump and many of his people are toxic to our democracy, but I strongly prefer to win "fair and square" rather than hyperbole.
  - unethical_ban 5y ago
    After trying to overthrow an election and continuing to tell millions of people things that were factually false, things which as president he knew were lies and knew people would believe because he was president. He wasn't cut off easily or lightly. It is not as if he suddenly can't have a website to spread his treason. Oh wait, he could... if he could afford a few developers.
    - skippyboxedhero 5y ago
      He didn't try to overthrow an election. He tried to use the same legal procedures to challenge the result that were used in 2001, and that are available to candidates in every election. And you believe they were lies, you are saying that you are the ultimate arbiter of truth...I don't support Trump, but I am willing to accept that people have different interpretations of events. I am also willing to accept that courts should be the ultimate arbiter of truth, not social media companies. Welcome to democracy. Btw, the irony of this is unbearable...Hilary Clinton has contested almost every election she lost. She said 2016 was rigged and challenged that result legally. She said that Obama rigged the Iowa primary. Politicians often think their opponents cheat, it is called motivated reasoning...again, that is why we have courts to decide, not you, not me.
      - unethical_ban 5y ago
        >He tried to use the same legal procedures to challenge the result that were used in 2001 He didn't merely challenge a few items, he loudly proclaimed as fact before the fact that the election was intentionally rigged by a large combination of Democrats and RINO Secretaries of State, and was shot down at every challenge due to a complete lack of evidence. He and his liar sycophants continue to spread these lies not just as supposition, but as fact. It is disingenuous to compare Trump's challenges-cum-lies to any run-of-the-mill challenge of years past. Back to the main point: He could stand up a blog very quickly and have the ears of all willing listeners on the planet.
        skippyboxedhero 5y ago
        Which is within his rights to do. There is no law saying that you are unable to say you believe an election is being rigged before it occurs, logically that is when the rigging would occur...it is hard to rig an election that has ended (and btw, Clinton claimed that Obama bussed people in from Illinois before the result...if you didn't know Clinton had a lot of "theories" about the integrity of elections in Iowa, which she repeated in 2016). The challenges he made were identical. Read what you wrote again, you refer to no laws, you are referring only to the fact that he said something you don't agree with. There is no law against this. He challenged the result legally, he was not successful, he took no other action but to repeat his claim that he believed the election result was fraudulent...which he is within his rights to do. Great, I suppose that everyone who wants to leave Twitter now will be able to do the same...right? (I don't think you understand that arguing against free speech is not a winnable argument, you are arguing against inalienable rights that founded the USA, I could also posit...if you don't like free speech, you could consider starting your own blog and moving to a country where there is no free speech?).
- timkpaine 5y ago
  They've won the popular vote by massive margins since 2000
  - jrajav 5y ago
    George Bush won the popular vote in 2004, just barely. Otherwise the point stands - especially for 2016, where the popular vote for the "winner" Donald Trump was only 46%, a margin of about 3 million people. It was the third most disenfranchising election in American history, and the others were in the 1800s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
  - mumblemumble 5y ago
    I wouldn't say massive margins. And they didn't always win it. Gore (D) got 52.1% in 2000, and lost. GWB (R) got 50.7% in 2004, and won. Obama (D) got 52.9% in 2008, and won. Obama (D) got 51.1% in 2012, and won. Clinton (D) got 53.5% in 2016, and lost. Biden (D) got 51.3% in 2020, and won.
quadrifoliate 5y ago
Their mistake is understandable, they were assuming that the discourse would be digital-native only. What they did not anticipate was the odd combination of regular media like TV channels reporting breathlessly on (essentially) online trolling for which you'd be banned immediately from any 2008-era phpBB forum.
mschuster91 5y ago
There is a crucial difference between the Obama campaigns and the events that led to the 45th and the shitshow that we are in: Obama used positive messaging, whereas Republican and especially Republican-associated and Russian-originated messaging was almost exclusively aimed at evoking negative emotions - in short, destructive messaging. Destructive messaging works extremely well in social media, as outrage is far more engagement-pushing and as a result algorithms pushed such content... a mechanism that was previously unknown and unpredictable. Obama and the pundits played by the established rules of honesty and fairness and expected the Republicans to do the same... and the Republicans (as well as their associated media, starting with Fox News and ending with OAN/Newsmax) broke with all traditions of democracy and went onto a destruction spree instead. The result is that trust in democracy is fundamentally broken now.
juve1996 5y ago
If the US electoral system didn't drastically disadvantage the popular vote this would certainly be different. Defending free speech is meaningless if one person's vote is worth more than another's.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bko 5y ago
  The political game is optimized for the current system. If the rules changed to something like popular vote, the strategies would shift drastically. You can't just take the popular vote from the current system and assume it would carry over with a new set of rules. There's also tradeoffs to a purely direct democracy that have to be weighed. It's not a clear-cut win for governance
  - juve1996 5y ago
    It's true we can't "really" know. But I would bet a lot of money that republicans would be severely disadvantaged without an electoral college. Not much would change. The nation would still be 2 party. We'd simply have a president elected by popular vote like every other (senators, reps, etc.) Strategies can change but that doesn't mean the current system does not significantly benefit one party over another. The very existence of the senate is a blocker to true democratic rule and for good reason. But I don't think changing the election of the president to one person gets one vote would usurp the current system. It's simply more fair. But of course more fair is not what any party truly wants.
bko 5y ago
Its pretty simple. The political parties are for whatever interest can help them win. O was masterful at social media so it was a great boom. Similarly he raised a lot more money than his opponent so his desire for election financing reform also disappeared. Now the tides have turned and the other political party is using social media more effectively. Something as simple as asking simple questions, pointing out hypocrisy and highlighting some extreme members of the other side would do it. So naturally the party in threat is against a free exchange of ideas.

by avalys 5y ago

birken 5y ago

Well to be fair, Democrats won in "landslides" in 2008, 2012 and 2020.

skippyboxedhero 5y ago
And then their main opponent was removed from all social media. Masterful work. Real politics. That is how you win.
- kajecounterhack 5y ago
  Their main opponent also tried to stage a coup. And for years, this person wasn't removed despite many other posts that would have otherwised violated ToS -- special treatment for being a head of state. So there's some context to this quip.
  - Mikeb85 5y ago
    > Their main opponent also tried to stage a coup. Please, calling it a coup is a joke. France has larger demonstrations almost monthly (at least during non-Covid times), I've seen larger riots in the aftermath of hockey games. It was a few rednecks rioting...
    - timkpaine 5y ago
      A few rednecks, millionaires, members of congress, family of Supreme Court justices, White House staff....
    - kajecounterhack 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_United_States_Capitol_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_United_States_Capitol_att... Read the article. It wasn't a "few rednecks rioting" -- there were two pipe bombs. Elected representatives were in actual danger; capitol police were struggling to hold back the participants. That the "rednecks rioting" were so poorly organized doesn't make it any less a coup. Our elected officials were being sheltered in windowless rooms.
      - usrn 5y ago
        Funny the pipe bomb guy wasn't caught despite how easy it should be to find him. Funny the guy who encouraged everyone to go to the capital (despite the almost universal disagreement) hasn't testified.
      - mumblemumble 5y ago
        Also, the stated purpose was to subvert the democratic process and install their figurehead as leader. I don't know that I'd call it an attempted coup, either, because that gives them too much credit. They weren't particularly well organized, and didn't seem to know what to do once they breached the capitol building. That said, it doesn't really matter that the gilets jaunes were protesting for longer and in larger numbers; directly comparing them is a category error. The gilet jaunes were operating within the norms of how French civil society currently operates. The Capitol protesters/insurgents/whatever were expressly trying to overturn them. Maybe not a coup, maybe not treason, but sedition at the very least.
    - jkubicek 5y ago
      A few rednecks whipped into a frenzy by the actual President of the US and backed by his supporters in congress who were attempting to overturn the election. We can't let the laughable ineptitude of these people distract us; they may not be so freakin' stupid the next time they attempt to overthrow our duly elected representatives.
      - Mikeb85 5y ago
        > We can't let the laughable ineptitude of these people distract us We definitely can. The whole world laughs at the US when they call it a coup. We've seen plenty of real coups in our lifetime, this ain't it.
    - taylodl 5y ago
      Technically you're right - it was an attempted coup.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Please, calling it a coup is a joke. France has larger demonstrations almost monthly Coup attempts are not defined by crowd size.
      - Mikeb85 5y ago
        No they're usually defined by military and government officials taking over institutions to overthrow the elected government. None of which happened. And when crowds do lead to governments being overthrown, usually it's crowds in the millions encouraging those institutions to overthrow the government. Again which didn't happen. By any definition it wasn't a coup d'état or even an attempt at anything with a chance of success.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > No they're usually defined by military and government officials taking over institutions to overthrow the elected government. No, a coup doesn't have to be by military and government officials (though they are usually best situated, and in any case were involved in the autocoup attempt of which the attack on the Capitol was a part—but neither the whole, the beginning, or necessarily even the end once it failed.) And a coup attempt can (this specific subtype is called a self-coup, autocoup, or autogolpe) seek to irregularly extend the powers or the term of the current leadership, not overthrow anyone already in power, and this is what the one involving the 1/6 attack was. And a coup attempt doesn't always involve taking over anything, in the same way a murder attempt doesn't always produce a dead body.
        Mikeb85 5y ago
        By this logic I could gather 10 friends from the pub, go to a government building, break a few windows, say we want to overthrow the government, then go home and call it an attempted coup. Really though, that's never been successful and calling it an attempt is being extremely generous. It's like saying writing a Tweet is an attempt at writing a novel.
        5y ago
  - skippyboxedhero 5y ago
    A coup? Seriously? Have you seen what a coup looks like? They usually involve armies and mass executions, it isn't some shirtless guy in a headdress. Again though, this is exactly my point. I am not from the US. I couldn't really care less. But the problem is that someone's obviously ludicrous subjective interpretation of an event is being stated as an objective fact, and then applied by social media. Do you not see how this can backfire on you? In other words, you have no problem when it is being rigged against people you don't like but how are you going to respond when it is rigged against you? This is the reason we have courts. This is the reason we have free speech. It is indivisible, applied to everyone equally. None of his posts violated ToS (there are people on Twitter who are orchestrating genocide), you just don't like them.
    - markoman 5y ago
      Earlier this year the DoJ charged Stewart Rhodes and 10 other Oath Keepers members with seditious conspiracy for allegedly plotting to prevent by force the transfer of presidential power to Joe Biden. A number of these conspirators were involved in the siege of the Capitol on 01/06/21. Court papers say the group also had weapons stashed at a hotel nearby in Virginia and a quick reaction force ready to ferry them into Washington, D.C., if Rhodes gave the order. A magistrate judge in Texas ordered that Rhodes remain in jail pending trial. Federal code defines seditious conspiracy as two or more people conspiring to overthrow or destroy by force the United States government, or to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any U.S. law.
      - freedomben 5y ago
        It sounds like you're arguing a different issue than GP was replying to (unless your contention is that Trump was leading the Oath Keepers). They replied to: > Their main opponent also tried to stage a coup. But that said it still seems like a real stretch to me to say that the US federal government was so weak that there was ever a serious risk of 10 idiots overthrowing it and installing their guy. It seems like the word "coup" is somewhat meaningless if the same word is used to describe highly organized government takeovers by military leaders, as well as a small group of yokels that didn't even know what to do when they got into the capital building so started walking around taking pictures like tourists. I don't know what word I would use instead, probably "riot" or maybe even "rebellion" (actually, Shay's Rebellion seems way worse than what this was), but "coup" has never felt right to me. Also worth pointing out I think is that they've been charged with seditious conspiracy (which I agree is a big deal) but none have been convicted (yet). Prosecutorial overreach is a huge problem in our country that needs to change. (to be clear I'm not saying this is a case of prosecutorial overreach, I honestly don't know. But it is certainly possible given how widespread it is in general in the US). Especially hard hit bit it are marginalized groups that can't adequately defend themselves. I've seen cases where the prosecutor didn't think they stood a chance of getting a conviction but they wanted a plea deal so they charged him with as much as possible to scare him into a guilty plea so they didn't have to go to trial. It also shouldn't be overlooked that there is a massive political incentive for the current people in power to paint this as much as possible as "a coup." Selfishly I do hope they succeed, because I think Trump and many of his people are toxic to our democracy, but I strongly prefer to win "fair and square" rather than hyperbole.
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  After trying to overthrow an election and continuing to tell millions of people things that were factually false, things which as president he knew were lies and knew people would believe because he was president. He wasn't cut off easily or lightly. It is not as if he suddenly can't have a website to spread his treason. Oh wait, he could... if he could afford a few developers.
  - skippyboxedhero 5y ago
    He didn't try to overthrow an election. He tried to use the same legal procedures to challenge the result that were used in 2001, and that are available to candidates in every election. And you believe they were lies, you are saying that you are the ultimate arbiter of truth...I don't support Trump, but I am willing to accept that people have different interpretations of events. I am also willing to accept that courts should be the ultimate arbiter of truth, not social media companies. Welcome to democracy. Btw, the irony of this is unbearable...Hilary Clinton has contested almost every election she lost. She said 2016 was rigged and challenged that result legally. She said that Obama rigged the Iowa primary. Politicians often think their opponents cheat, it is called motivated reasoning...again, that is why we have courts to decide, not you, not me.
    - unethical_ban 5y ago
      >He tried to use the same legal procedures to challenge the result that were used in 2001 He didn't merely challenge a few items, he loudly proclaimed as fact before the fact that the election was intentionally rigged by a large combination of Democrats and RINO Secretaries of State, and was shot down at every challenge due to a complete lack of evidence. He and his liar sycophants continue to spread these lies not just as supposition, but as fact. It is disingenuous to compare Trump's challenges-cum-lies to any run-of-the-mill challenge of years past. Back to the main point: He could stand up a blog very quickly and have the ears of all willing listeners on the planet.
      - skippyboxedhero 5y ago
        Which is within his rights to do. There is no law saying that you are unable to say you believe an election is being rigged before it occurs, logically that is when the rigging would occur...it is hard to rig an election that has ended (and btw, Clinton claimed that Obama bussed people in from Illinois before the result...if you didn't know Clinton had a lot of "theories" about the integrity of elections in Iowa, which she repeated in 2016). The challenges he made were identical. Read what you wrote again, you refer to no laws, you are referring only to the fact that he said something you don't agree with. There is no law against this. He challenged the result legally, he was not successful, he took no other action but to repeat his claim that he believed the election result was fraudulent...which he is within his rights to do. Great, I suppose that everyone who wants to leave Twitter now will be able to do the same...right? (I don't think you understand that arguing against free speech is not a winnable argument, you are arguing against inalienable rights that founded the USA, I could also posit...if you don't like free speech, you could consider starting your own blog and moving to a country where there is no free speech?).
timkpaine 5y ago
They've won the popular vote by massive margins since 2000
- jrajav 5y ago
  George Bush won the popular vote in 2004, just barely. Otherwise the point stands - especially for 2016, where the popular vote for the "winner" Donald Trump was only 46%, a margin of about 3 million people. It was the third most disenfranchising election in American history, and the others were in the 1800s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
- mumblemumble 5y ago
  I wouldn't say massive margins. And they didn't always win it. Gore (D) got 52.1% in 2000, and lost. GWB (R) got 50.7% in 2004, and won. Obama (D) got 52.9% in 2008, and won. Obama (D) got 51.1% in 2012, and won. Clinton (D) got 53.5% in 2016, and lost. Biden (D) got 51.3% in 2020, and won.

quadrifoliate 5y ago

Their mistake is understandable, they were assuming that the discourse would be digital-native only. What they did not anticipate was the odd combination of regular media like TV channels reporting breathlessly on (essentially) online trolling for which you'd be banned immediately from any 2008-era phpBB forum.

mschuster91 5y ago

There is a crucial difference between the Obama campaigns and the events that led to the 45th and the shitshow that we are in: Obama used positive messaging, whereas Republican and especially Republican-associated and Russian-originated messaging was almost exclusively aimed at evoking negative emotions - in short, destructive messaging. Destructive messaging works extremely well in social media, as outrage is far more engagement-pushing and as a result algorithms pushed such content... a mechanism that was previously unknown and unpredictable. Obama and the pundits played by the established rules of honesty and fairness and expected the Republicans to do the same... and the Republicans (as well as their associated media, starting with Fox News and ending with OAN/Newsmax) broke with all traditions of democracy and went onto a destruction spree instead. The result is that trust in democracy is fundamentally broken now.

juve1996 5y ago

If the US electoral system didn't drastically disadvantage the popular vote this would certainly be different. Defending free speech is meaningless if one person's vote is worth more than another's.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bko 5y ago
The political game is optimized for the current system. If the rules changed to something like popular vote, the strategies would shift drastically. You can't just take the popular vote from the current system and assume it would carry over with a new set of rules. There's also tradeoffs to a purely direct democracy that have to be weighed. It's not a clear-cut win for governance
- juve1996 5y ago
  It's true we can't "really" know. But I would bet a lot of money that republicans would be severely disadvantaged without an electoral college. Not much would change. The nation would still be 2 party. We'd simply have a president elected by popular vote like every other (senators, reps, etc.) Strategies can change but that doesn't mean the current system does not significantly benefit one party over another. The very existence of the senate is a blocker to true democratic rule and for good reason. But I don't think changing the election of the president to one person gets one vote would usurp the current system. It's simply more fair. But of course more fair is not what any party truly wants.

bko 5y ago

Its pretty simple. The political parties are for whatever interest can help them win. O was masterful at social media so it was a great boom. Similarly he raised a lot more money than his opponent so his desire for election financing reform also disappeared. Now the tides have turned and the other political party is using social media more effectively. Something as simple as asking simple questions, pointing out hypocrisy and highlighting some extreme members of the other side would do it. So naturally the party in threat is against a free exchange of ideas.