• The moderators of this forum are Martin and May.
  • Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon.

American Politics

Ryota Mitarai

Shrektimus Prime
is a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributor
1952, Truman is term limited since he took over early in FDR's 4th term and had served for >6 years. Eisenhower wins open election.
I hope this doesn't come off as a nitpick, but Truman wasn't term limited. The amendment that put in action the two-term limit didn't apply to Truman, as it was proposed during his presidency. However, he did choose not to exploit it (since his approval ratings at the time weren't really high anyways) To refer to the wording of the section:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
 
He's pretty much explicitly just removing the cases where a third party candidate has actually won a significant chunk of the vote and this may have helped lead to an incumbent losing. Obviously all elections HAVE third party candidates, but 1-2% does not usually make a major impact, and moreover beating incumbents is very rare in modern US history. Aside from 2020, it has otherwise only happened in 2 rather unusual elections, since FDR.

Here are the results dating back to FDR. Years where an incumbent lost are bolded:
1932, described below. FDR defeats incumbent Hoover.
1936-1944, FDR wins re-election as incumbent
1948, the now-incumbent Truman (post FDR's death) wins election.
1952, Truman is term limited since he took over early in FDR's 4th term and had served for >6 years. Eisenhower wins open election.
1956, Eisenhower wins re-election.
1960, JFK wins open election.
1964, the now-incumbent Johnson (post JFK's death) wins election.
1968, Johnson waffles and ultimately does not run for reelection. Nixon wins an open election.
1972, Nixon wins re-election.
1976, Carter wins open election.
1980, described below. Reagan defeats incumbent, with large % of vote going to a third party candidate.
1984, Reagan wins re-election.
1988, Bush Sr. wins open election.
1992, described below. Clinton defeats incumbent, with large % of vote going to a third party candidate.
1996, Clinton wins re-election.
2000, Bush Jr. wins open election.
2004, Bush Jr. wins re-election.
2008, Obama wins open election.
2012, Obama wins re-election.
2016, Trump wins open election.
2020, described below. Biden defeats incumbent, WITHOUT large % of vote going to a third party candidate.

So the cases RaikouLover is excluding with that caveat about third parties are:
1980 where Reagan beat Carter by a 9.74% margin, with Anderson receiving 6.6% of the vote.
1992 where Clinton beat Bush Sr by a 5.56% margin, with Perot receiving 18.9% of the vote.

Total vote share going to a republican + democrat in the elections where an incumbent lost:
1932 - 57.4 + 39.7 = 97.1%. Only 2.9% went to all 3rd party candidates (mostly to the Socialist Party).
1980 - 50.7 + 41.0 = 91.7%. 8.3% went to all 3rd party candidates (mostly to Anderson, an "independent" who had been a republican member of the house and ran to the left of Reagan).
1992 - 43.0 + 37.4 = 80.4%. 19.6% went to all 3rd party candidates (mostly to Perot, an independent).
2020 - 50.8 + 47.4 = 98.2%. Preliminary results, obviously... but the point is this election is a heck of a lot more like FDR's victory over Hoover than the only other 2 times in modern history that an incumbent has been defeated.

Another way to look at it if you don't want to get into "how many votes for a third party 'matter'" is just the raw vote share. Under that measure, Biden won a larger vote share (50.8%) than any challenger since FDR.
Another nitpick, but in 1976 it wasn't an open election as Carter defeated the incumbent Ford, who became president when Nixon resigned.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Another nitpick, but in 1976 it wasn't an open election as Carter defeated the incumbent Ford, who became president when Nixon resigned.
I hope this doesn't come off as a nitpick, but Truman wasn't term limited. The amendment that put in action the two-term limit didn't apply to Truman, as it was proposed during his presidency. However, he did choose not to exploit it (since his approval ratings at the time weren't really high anyways) To refer to the wording of the section:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Thanks both. Edited it in. This is what I get for writing quickly. Obviously I knew Ford, just being stupid. Truman and the 22nd amendment though, I actually learned something today. Didn’t know he was grandfathered in. Thanks!
 
I'm happy biden won, i'm a democrat and I hated how a meme of a president we had just fucked everything up and drove us more to a nationalistic way of life, hell, it has ruined my mom.

i wouldn't mind living in a social democracy, it would be fun : )

oh right, i forgot this is political....

um...

yeah, never liked trump.
 
I'm unsure if I should be appalled or just indifferent to Trump's refusal to concede. I dislike both parties (well, more accurately, I dislike the two-party system) but find myself more ideologically aligned with Democrats.

At this point, I'm just hoping that we don't go into a civil war or something because of how this situation may shake out...
 
  • Like
Reactions: JES
I'm unsure if I should be appalled or just indifferent to Trump's refusal to concede. I dislike both parties (well, more accurately, I dislike the two-party system) but find myself more ideologically aligned with Democrats.

At this point, I'm just hoping that we don't go into a civil war or something because of how this situation may shake out...
I gotta agree there with you, civil war is not a good thing
 

May

formerly Plague von Karma
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Pokemon Researcheris a Top Contributor
Moderator
Civil war over a bourgeois election would just be a really sad thing to watch, especially when Biden is predicted to not establish much change.

Common sense says it won't happen. You can't underestimate the stupidity of some Trump supporters, though: there's already some pretty threatening videos out there. Even then, I wouldn't say it would amount to more than right wing terrorism, which has been a problem for decades, maybe even centuries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lrr
I don't know why the post above nearly caused me to break out into a laughing fit, but it did. Probably because of the absurdity of it all, and how close my country appear to be tittering over the edge. Half the country thinks that the election was stolen from them, and people like me fears that Trump is going to steal the election, and then sic the military or police on us, and place us all under martial law if we protest for stealing the election from us.

No, a civil war would not be a good thing either. Especially with a man who is quite frankly a megalomanic, and probably three fries short of a Happy Meal, not to mention would obviously take away the rights of anyone who raises opinions he doesn't like (e.i. "radical leftists" like me). And especially with modern weapons that can turn entire cities into smoking craters, not to mention what they'd do to the people who live there.

If America survives this coming potential train wreck, and Biden gets sworn in on January 20th, I still want the villains in the next games to be a bunch of masochists, sycophants, and downtrodden who just want to burn the whole region down headed by President Evil, complete with, I don't know, a Tiki Torch Pokémon? They have to have more than just Braviarys, Steel, and Dark types. Have I been thinking too much about what a neo authoritarian administration villain team would look like in the Pokémon world? Maybe. But it makes for a nice distraction from the darker, more depressing thoughts that have been percolating through my mind, the former of which I quite frankly deserve. That, and a President Evil villain for the next games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: May

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
“With such a messy 2020 result everyone is rushing to spin a narrative that works for them. There is one clear point laid out by the data though: adding Kamala Harris to the ticket did not increase black or minority share for the Democrats. Perhaps not surprising given that in the primary, minority voters backed white guys Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders instead.”

 

MAMP

MAMP!
is a Pre-Contributor
“With such a messy 2020 result everyone is rushing to spin a narrative that works for them. There is one clear point laid out by the data though: adding Kamala Harris to the ticket did not increase black or minority share for the Democrats. Perhaps not surprising given that in the primary, minority voters backed white guys Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders instead.”

hang on is this woman’s name actually Krystal Ball
 
With all that being said, the Democrats are poor messengers. However, it's mostly a function of having to include everyone that isn't a straight cisgender white dude into one party.

So yes, Democrats are going to have electoral struggles. They naturally have a much larger base than the Republicans but have extreme geographic disadvantages along with far more competing interests. We prevailed because the majority of this country isn't quite ready to trade democracy for autocracy. Only time will tell how long that remains true. Though it is...troubling that the majority of white voters were more than happy to live under a dictatorship.
https://www.newsweek.com/87-democrats-support-medicare-all-though-joe-biden-doesnt-1522833

They'd struggle a lot less if they would support policies that a supermajority of their base wants.

Or is this another "rightwing talking point" that you're going to ignore because you're a partisan hack?
 

power

uh-oh, the game in trouble
This is silly. This particular poll does not distinguish between Medicare for all and Medicare for all who want it.

Only 41% of people support the former. 70% of people support the latter.

Unsurprisingly, the latter is exactly the plan that Biden has laid out.

FAF3E17A-ED65-4156-88D9-C4756EBA270E.jpeg


(This table is using the Marist poll, which distinguishes betweens the two plans and asks Americans about their support for each. Crucially, 90% of Democrats also support Biden's plan, on top of the plan being far more popular among Independents. http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-con...Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_1907190926.pdf )
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
imagine thinking that you cant get private insurance in a single-payer insurance system.
 

power

uh-oh, the game in trouble
imagine thinking that you cant get private insurance in a single-payer insurance system.
If you've read the single payer Medicare for All bill written by Sanders, it outlaws private insurance that overlaps with anything currently covered by Medicare (complementary insurance), which functionally outlaws almost all current private insurance plans today. Supplementary insurance will still be legal, but crucially complementary insurance will not be. This means that you cannot purchase private insurance for doctor's visits, for example; everyone is required to be on the public plan. This is objectionable for a large portion of Americans (including me) who support the Medicare for all who want it plan.

The right to complementary insurance is pretty important. Countries where complementary insurance is legal, like Australia, report much higher satisfaction with their health care systems, than countries where complementary insurance is illegal, such as Canada.

58201F41-5723-47CC-A6D1-995FD899FC21.jpeg
 
Last edited:

power

uh-oh, the game in trouble
"Medicare already bans any private insurers from offering the same coverage it offers. Canada's single-payer system does this too."

https://theweek.com/articles/850638...all-private-insurance-not-even-bernie-sanders
I am aware of this. I actually intended to include this in my post, but I prematurely submitted it. I have edited it in here, and bolded the part I added.

The right to complementary insurance is pretty important. Countries where complementary insurance is legal, like Australia, report much higher satisfaction with their health care systems, than countries where complementary insurance is illegal, such as Canada.
 
with this slow-motion, oafish attempt to reinstall trump i keep worrying. not for the country so much, although this sends a dangerous precedent that might be better used by a more effective reactionary in the future, but for one group of people: latin american communist fleers. has anyone checked in on them? with their epigenetic memories and abiding political fear of authoritarianism, they must be in a constant state of panic, depression, anxiety, terror. it's happening again... i recognize the signs of democratic decline... we could have our own maduro... if anyone can direct me to their protest efforts i will be happy to contribute in the spirit of soliarity and democratic freedom.
 

cb aaron judge

ALL RISE
is a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnus
the main event may be over, but the election cycle sure isn’t, with all eyes on georgia with its two runoffs on january 5 that determine senate control come january 20 at noon. while biden may have been the first democrat to carry the peach state since 1992, he did it by a razor thin margin exceeded by the amount of votes jo jorgensen got statewide. given the fact that democrats only picked up FIVE seats across both houses of congress (with only 2 gop senate incumbents being defeated & all 3 dem house pickups being open seats, 2 of those due to redistricting) in addition to the white house, i’m favoring perdue & loeffler to hold their seats come january 5 & keep the senate in gop hands. 3 reasons outlined below
1. they aren’t donald trump - while they have strongly embraced trump (too much so in my opinion), they aren’t the man himself. his presence off the ballot may cause hardcore base voters who still believe he won to stay home, but that will be offset by trump skeptics who did not vote for him but will vote for gop senators in order to have a check on biden’s agenda.
2. republicans won a plurality in both races. perdue got more votes than ossoff, but shane hazel siphoned off enough votes to force a runoff. since hazel was previously a republican, one would think many of his voters will vote for perdue in the runoff. warnock got more votes than loeffler, but he had consolidated his party’s base moreso than loeffler (who faced a significant challenge from collins, but will likely gain most of his prior voters)
3. voter inelasticity - georgia is an inelastic state, meaning that ticket-splitting is not as common compared to states in new england, but it was significant enough to where biden won the state. however, democrats got less votes than republicans overall in both senate races. georgia voting patterns strongly correlate with race, but this has blurred in recent years with white voters in metro areas helping flip the state to biden. however, there are certainly enough voters that didnt vote trump but voted gop downballot (or only voted for biden & nothing more). i also expect a decent amount of perdue-warnock votes, especially in rural majority-black counties in southwest georgia considering the name perdue is well known statewide & loeffler is an unelected incumbent running against the preacher of the church mlk once attended.
tldr - predicting perdue & loeffler both win, with loeffler winning by a tighter margin.
 
Last edited:
“With such a messy 2020 result everyone is rushing to spin a narrative that works for them. There is one clear point laid out by the data though: adding Kamala Harris to the ticket did not increase black or minority share for the Democrats. Perhaps not surprising given that in the primary, minority voters backed white guys Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders instead.”


Rising is GOP propaganda produced by Rudy Giuliani and Paul Manafort's mouthpiece at the Hill. Krystal Ball is literally a minimum effort fraudster whose entire purpose on the show is to reframe Republican talking points as part of a "balanced" presentation. The entire premise of the show is so dishonest that any claim of objectivity or balance is dubious at best.

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article210775574.html

seriously, how the fuck do Muricans fall for this? There's also a weird pattern of far-right fake news sites in Canada that are considered up here to be unreliable and rife with fake news that is somehow regularly promoted by mainstream Republicans, to the point that most of these sites' ad revenue is coming from American viewers. I swear that our border is a cursed line that makes anyone south of it incapable of identifying credible sources.

My favorite part about the 2020 election was how much of a clown Rudy Giuliani was.

Also the Trump lawsuits are some of the weakest lawsuits ever seen. You know you've failed when you can't spell "district" correctly.

But, hey, it satisfies the grifting that they need.
You're forgetting that Giuliani was the one who targeted counterintelligence head (Strzok) and the FBI's lead agent on the Semion Mogilevich Organisation (Page). Giuliani only started cocking up when State Department staff blew the whistle on his attempts to replace the ambassador to Ukraine with Peter Sessions, whose father represented Mogilevich himself up until the former's death this year. As soon as those efforts failed, Giuliani became a drowning man seeking any further help he can get from the Russians. One of the hilariously stupid things I can't get over is that he basically used the same Hannity staffer (Emma Morris) that he recruited to interview Lutsenko on Fox (which fell through after the arrests of Giuliani's mob pals), to next publish a planted piece on "Hunter Biden's laptop." Again, that treasonous pervert crippled the security apparatus of the United States of America and yet somehow didn't have the foresight to use Ken Vogel instead.
 
Last edited:

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Rising is GOP propaganda produced by Rudy Giuliani and Paul Manafort's mouthpiece at the Hill. Krystal Ball is literally a minimum effort fraudster whose entire purpose on the show is to reframe Republican talking points as part of a "balanced" presentation. The entire premise of the show is so dishonest that any claim of objectivity or balance is dubious at best.

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article210775574.html

seriously, how the fuck do Muricans fall for this? There's also a weird pattern of far-right fake news sites in Canada that are considered up here to be unreliable and rife with fake news that is somehow regularly promoted by mainstream Republicans, to the point that most of these sites' ad revenue is coming from American viewers. I swear that our border is a cursed line that makes anyone south of it incapable of identifying credible sources.



You're forgetting that Giuliani was the one who targeted counterintelligence head (Strzok) and the FBI's lead agent on the Semion Mogilevich Organisation (Page). Giuliani only started cocking up when State Department staff blew the whistle on his attempts to replace the ambassador to Ukraine with Peter Sessions, whose father represented Mogilevich himself up until the former's death this year. As soon as those efforts failed, Giuliani became a drowning man seeking any further help he can get from the Russians. One of the hilariously stupid things I can't get over is that he basically used the same Hannity staffer (Emma Morris) that he recruited to interview Lutsenko on Fox (which fell through after the arrests of Giuliani's mob pals), to next publish a planted piece on "Hunter Biden's laptop." Again, that treasonous pervert crippled the security apparatus of the United States of America and yet somehow didn't have the foresight to use Ken Vogel instead.
Not really bro... for anyone familiar w/ left-tube and who still watches left-tube, the show is basically the same kind of content and arguments that you’ll hear if you watch Secular Talk, Humanist Report, Rational National, TMBS, Jimmy Dore etc. I don’t get anything from rising that I don’t also consume from left tube (and so many episodes feature left-tubers or leftist SME’s like Brianna Joy Grey, Richard Wolff, etc. anyway)
If you are a Jacobin reader/watcher or the type of person who follows Glenn Greenwald, than watching Rising is just stroking your world view.

If you’re a leftist who watches left tube, Krystal Ball isn’t converting you to the GOP (lol wtf) or instilling a hate for Democrats that you didn’t already have. After Bernie left, of course Saagar’s politics took more center because Krystal had no real skin in the game (like most Berners), but the Bernie left was pretty much the anchor of the show until Bernie lost, and while the audience has DNC haters of all stripes, the audience is obviously biased left reading through the comments.
She’s just stoking the same existing hate for liberals you’d go to Jimmy Dore or Chapo Trap House to get stoked anyway— using the same facts, making the same arguments; just professionally polished and often making those same left-tube arguments to the face of shallow, obviously corrupt DNC operatives/experts stupid enough to keep going on the show for some reason. The only difference between Rising episodes and a given left tube segment is that one of these I’d send to my Mom.

Also if you’re a leftist who watches the show, you’re not going to be convinced to Saagar’s POV— but you will see where the right may be pursuadable to collaborate on populist goals given certain conditions and framing.

If you actually think this, it means you are just not aware of how much hate the left has for the Democrats and liberal mainstream at large.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top