Cling to the dream


I’m one of Rachel Swirsky’s patrons on Patreon, so I get to read all these little stories, and you don’t. One of her latest is November, 2016 — One Dozen Counterfactuals for the 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections, which consists of 12 alternate histories for how the past year could have turned out. I’m going to mention just one:

9. During the nomination stage, both Warren and Biden tossed their hats into the ring along with Sanders’ and Clinton’s. Exciting debates about how best to move forward with progressive policy led to a renaissance in thought. Intellectuals, activists, and community leaders were invited to lead vigorous discussion. Some – like Noam Chomsky – became candidates themselves. The ultimate winner’s name has been lost to history, as they insisted on giving collective credit to the movement which transformed the American political landscape into a pony-strewn rainbow meadow.

I think I’ll just lie back and pretend that one really happened, because the reality is too dystopian and vile.

Just for a little while, though. Because we have to wake up soon and fight back.

Comments

  1. Jake Harban says

    I think I’ll just lie back and pretend that one really happened, because the reality is too dystopian and vile.

    Just for a little while, though. Because we have to wake up soon and fight back.

    Good luck with that. Thanks to (collective) your commitment to “lesser evil-ism,” Trump can claim bipartisan support for his actions.

    Torture? The left was OK with Obama doing it. Bipartisan support.

    War? The left supported Obama and Clinton’s colonialism. Bipartisan support.

    Mass spying? Obama supported it and the left was OK with that. Bipartisan support.

    Immigration? Obama was a huge supporter of mass deportation; the left was just fine with that. As long as Trump backs down from wanting to build a physical wall (which was impossible anyway), he can claim bipartisan support.

    Killing US citizens with impunity? Even Bush never ordered an extrajudicial assassination of an American. Obama did, though— and the left was just fine with it. Bipartisan support.

    Coddling bankers? The left supported Obama for it and they supported Clinton’s plan for it. Bipartisan support.

    Global warming? Obama did nothing; Clinton planned to do nothing; the left supported both. Trump’s denial of its existence may be a huge rhetorical step, but his plan to ignore the problem has bipartisan support.

    DAPL? Obama supports it. Clinton supported it. Stein opposed it. The left supported Obama and Clinton and despised Stein. Trump can legitimately claim even many of the Standing Rock protestors don’t consider it important enough to actually vote against.

    Whistleblowers and government transparency? Obama was the biggest persecutor of whistleblowers; the left was fine with that. Clinton considers Snowden and Manning to be criminals and traitors; the left supported her. If Trump makes it illegal to report on his criminality, he can claim bipartisan support.

    Abortion? Well, that’s a bit muddier but since even you proudly announced your intention to vote for an anti-choicer for Congress, Trump can probably make the case that while the left may support abortion rights, they clearly don’t consider it too important.

    Minority rights? Again, slightly muddier; Trump is actively hostile to minority rights, while the left (based on votes, not rhetoric) is actively hostile only to the rights of foreign minorities while merely indifferent to the rights of American minorities. Even so, it’s hard to make the case against him without sounding too hypocritical. It’s not as though the left has been voting for police reform, expanded voting rights, an end to pretext laws like the War On Drugs, or any sort of major systemic reforms; the left has, however, heavily voted for colonialism and the subjugation of many countries whose populations are insufficiently white.

    Getting any progressive policies passed (or regressive ones undone) will require getting progressive candidates in office. Getting progressive candidates in office will require voting for progressive candidates. In order to vote for progressive candidates, they need to be on the ballot. Getting them on the ballot requires taking control of the Democratic Party. And taking control of the Democratic Party means not voting for regressive Democrats even if they’re technically less regressive than their Republican opponents.

    You cannot get policies passed by first pledging to vote for someone no matter what and then saying that it would be great if they could pass your preferred policies but no pressure because you’ll support them either way.

  2. applehead says

    My fucking FSM, Harban, the election may have been rigged to hell and back after Voting Rights Act dismantling meant mass voter roll purges, but this changes nothing about the fact Bernie Bros en masse jumped ship to Trump.

    People like YOU voted for him, you’re just as responsible for this disaster as criminal Rethuglican lawmakers.

    Now do us all a favor and vanish to whatever rathole of your choosing and stay there. Your schtick got old months ago.

  3. Jake Harban says

    @2, applehead:

    If recollection holds, you’re one of the “post-truth” people whose worldview is shaped by the Democratic Party propaganda machine. This is supported by your current asinine claims that liberals voted for Trump en masse and that I voted for Trump in particular, as well as your implied claim that the Democrats opposed the destruction of the Voting Rights Act and attempted to solidify the right to vote.

    I heartily recommend you extract your cranium from your rectum and take responsibility for your role in Trump’s election— you didn’t vote for him, but you voted for people of similar views so he can legitimately say you support his policies however much you hate him personally or his implementation thereof.

  4. Siobhan says

    The irony of an ideological purist like Jake accusing someone else of being post-truth.

    Your philosophy has succeeded at electing exactly zero candidates.

  5. Azkyroth, B*Cos[F(u)]==Y says

    Hell, I’d settle for everyone who voted for Trump by not showing up or by marking a candidate who had no chance of defeating him on the ballot having come to their fucking senses, and then us holding Hillary’s feet to the fire going forward.

  6. Azkyroth, B*Cos[F(u)]==Y says

    And yes, Jake Harban, you in effect voted for Trump.

    When there is no reasonable doubt about the results of an action, a person who deliberately takes that action ipso facto intended those results.

    Claiming “I could have cast a vote that could help defeat him, but I didn’t, but that doesn’t mean I wanted him to win – I wanted a(n equivalently qualified) candidate with no chance of defeating him to win!” is like claiming “I didn’t MEAN to kill that guy, I just pushed him off a tall building! I wanted him to flap his wings and fly!”

  7. says

    The quoted article is clearly a satire; everybody knows if Noam Chomsky ran for President, the Jakes of the world would label him a sellout.

    Torture? The left was OK with Obama doing it. Bipartisan support.

    Thus on all these issues, over and over, the left and the right acquiesced, but the difference is the right was willing to destroy the country if they didn’t get their way, and the left wasn’t. When people like Jake say “the ‘professional left’ excused X,” what they mean is “Democrats weren’t willing to sabotage the country in order to get their way.”

    That’s why the right prevails this time — they were willing to sell the country to Russia in order to get their policy agenda. On the left, people like Snowden remain willing to sell the country to Russia in order to win THEIR policy agenda. These are not two poles on a continuum, these are both instances of the same phenomenon, the only difference is which issues they special plead, be it tax cuts, stopping the Terror-Industrial Complex, or “saving the unborn.”

    Both sides are completely willing to burn the house down if they can’t get the paint job they want, because the modern Republican party and the Snowdenistas are basically in agreement that the USA is a rotten and evil thing that must be punished and disciplined for its sins.

  8. rietpluim says

    Dreaming is good. Dreams are nice.
    Without dreams, we wouldn’t even know what to fight for.

  9. rietpluim says

    Jake Harban, please be so good to provide us with one example of PZ or one of his proponents being OK with torture, war, or mass spying. Just one will do.

  10. says

    I’m also concerned that now, in the time of Trump, of corruption, of Republican party that has become a tool of treason and theocracy, Jake Harban decides it is a good time to attack “The Left”.

  11. rietpluim says

    Oh yeah, now is a good time to discuss how awful Clinton is, and Obama, and how they pathed the way for someone who.. uhm.. who is actually even a lot more afwul but uhm.. well, it’s still Obama’s fault, and Clinton’s!

  12. Jake Harban says

    @4, Siobahn:

    The irony of an ideological purist like Jake accusing someone else of being post-truth.

    The only irony here is that half the people on FTB hate me for being an ideological purist who is insufficiently pragmatic while the other half hate me for being a pragmatist who is insufficiently ideologically pure.

    Your philosophy has succeeded at electing exactly zero candidates.

    My philosophy is that there are certain criteria on which we should refuse to compromise— even if that means refusing to vote for a Democrat.

    Which means that either you’re attacking a straw man or you believe no candidate more liberal than Bush has ever been elected to any public office. Either way, you’re in no position to complain that I refer to applehead as “post-truth.”

    @5, 6 Azkyroth:

    Hell, I’d settle for everyone who voted for Trump by not showing up or by marking a candidate who had no chance of defeating him on the ballot having come to their fucking senses

    What about the people who voted for Clinton by not showing up or by marking a candidate with no chance of defeating her?

    …and then us holding Hillary’s feet to the fire going forward.

    Just like you did with Obama? We know how well that worked out.

    Let’s try holding Trump’s feet to the fire. I’m sure that’ll work just as well.

    And yes, Jake Harban, you in effect voted for Trump.

    Citation needed.

    When there is no reasonable doubt about the results of an action, a person who deliberately takes that action ipso facto intended those results.

    Exactly. On election day, everyone faced this choice:

    (a) Vote for Trump. Result: Trump wins.
    (b) Vote for Clinton. Result: Trump wins.
    (c) Vote for Stein. Result: Trump wins.
    (d) Vote for Johnson. Result: Trump wins.
    (e) Vote write-in. Result: Trump wins.
    (f) Stay home. Result: Trump wins.

    Thus demonstrating that I effectively voted for Trump along with literally every other eligible voter.

    Oh wait, that’s stupid. Never mind. Looks like you’re talking out of your ass again.

    Claiming “I could have cast a vote that could help defeat him, but I didn’t, but that doesn’t mean I wanted him to win – I wanted a(n equivalently qualified) candidate with no chance of defeating him to win!” is like claiming “I didn’t MEAN to kill that guy, I just pushed him off a tall building! I wanted him to flap his wings and fly!”

    OK, are you seriously claiming that my vote single-handedly flipped three states I don’t actually live in?

    You don’t even know who I voted for, let alone whether it counted.

    And your analogy is completely disconnected from reality so there’s no sense delving into it.

    @7, sigaba:

    Your post is incredibly long, but can be basically summarized as: “Both Sides® want to destroy the country to get their way, but the left decided to be the better people and simply concede everything to the right rather than do it,” so I don’t really need to address it further.

    @9, rietpluim:

    Jake Harban, please be so good to provide us with one example of PZ or one of his proponents being OK with torture, war, or mass spying. Just one will do.

    He’s on record supporting Obama in 2012. He supported Obama relatively recently (late 2016). He’s on record supporting Clinton; he even posted his ballot marked for Clinton. He’s on record supporting an anti-choicer for Congress. (Collin Peterson from the look of it.)

    To borrow a quote from farther upthread— When there is no reasonable doubt about the results of an action, a person who deliberately takes that action ipso facto intended those results.

    @11, PZ:

    I’m also concerned that now, in the time of Trump, of corruption, of Republican party that has become a tool of treason and theocracy, Jake Harban decides it is a good time to attack “The Left”.

    I’m incredibly concerned about the apparent growth of tribalism that I’m seeing on FTB and elsewhere.

    It starts with the blanket forgiveness of Democrats simply for being on Our Team. A Republican (Bush) who attacks Iraq without provocation is a war criminal committing a horrible atrocity; a Democrat (Obama) who attacks Libya without provocation is “a little bit hawkish for my taste” but still worth supporting.

    Then comes the hard line between Us and Them. You voted for Trump? You’re a Deplorable who enthusiastically supports anything Trump ever does and should take personal responsibility for it. You voted for Clinton? You’re a Pragmatist who Did What Had To Be Done and have absolutely no responsibility for any of Clinton’s actions. You voted for Stein? Well that’s not voting for Clinton, which means it’s the same as voting for Trump, which means you’re a Deplorable who enthusiastically supports anything Trump ever does and should take personal responsibility for it. You voted for Johnson? Ditto. You voted write-in? Ditto. You didn’t bother to vote? Ditto.

    And then comes the claims that’s it’s somehow improper to criticize Our Team. First, it was John Morales claiming that I contributed to Clinton’s defeat by criticizing her— under the threat of Trump, I should have known better than to criticize a Democrat. And now PZ is doing the same thing; he’s far more polite (dare I say Minnesotan?) about it, of course, but it’s the same basic idea; the left is Our Team and in the presence of a threat from The Other, I should accept that Our Team is beyond criticism.

    When the threat of Republican-instigated theocracy is defeated, then it will be OK to criticize Sam Harris Richard Dawkins Hillary Clinton.

    @12, rietpluim:

    Oh yeah, now is a good time to discuss how awful Clinton is, and Obama, and how they pathed the way for someone who.. uhm.. who is actually even a lot more afwul but uhm.. well, it’s still Obama’s fault, and Clinton’s!

    Yes, it’s a good time. Considering that Trump is going to be in the White House just over a month from now, it’s incredibly important that we discuss (a) how he got there, (b) how to get him out, and (c) how to mitigate the damage.

    Or in other words, what could we have changed to prevent all this?

    Well, if we had run a liberal like Sanders instead of a neocon like Clinton, then Trump would have been defeated; that’s common sense and it’s backed up by numerous polls.

    If we had elected liberal Democrats instead of conservative Democrats in 2008, Trump would never have made it near the ballot in the first place. We know from experience in many different countries that liberal programs, once enacted, are very hard to dismantle and that they tend to yield lasting political benefits. We also know from experience in many different countries that the catalyst for fascism is usually economic; while bigotry is the fuel, economic distress is the ignition source. Had the Democrats enacted the progressive policies they campaigned on rather than Obama’s “Grand Bargain” austerity measures, the 2016 election would have looked very different.

    If we had elected liberal Republicans instead of conservative ones at any point, we could also have prevented this disaster, but liberal Republicans have been extinct for many decades so I doubt this was a viable option.

    In short, we need the Democrats to defeat Trump. We need the Democrats to block his agenda. If we want any sort of progress, we need the Democrats to do it. And that means we need to hold their feet to the fire when they don’t.

  13. Holms says

    My fucking FSM, Harban, the election may have been rigged to hell and back after Voting Rights Act dismantling meant mass voter roll purges, but this changes nothing about the fact Bernie Bros en masse jumped ship to Trump.

    I’d love to see any verification of this at all, that’s a strong claim.

  14. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    n short, we need the Democrats to defeat Trump. We need the Democrats to block his agenda. If we want any sort of progress, we need the Democrats to do it. And that means we need to hold their feet to the fire when they don’t.

    Hey, you don’t like democrats? Then shut the fuck up about them and ignore all political threads.
    Your inane analysis and hatred of Clinton didn’t do your agenda, if it was electing democrats, any good.
    All you did was cause folks to be even more alienated by the democrats due to your constant harangues that the democrats weren’t doing or behaving as you wanted them to. Who the fuck are you to dictate that?
    What have you done in the last four years to elect the democrats you desire? And what will you do in the next two and four years?
    My money is that you won’t don’t anything other than loudly complain. You will do none of the ground work necessary for progressive candidates to come to the fore with backing that would allow them to win primaries and the general election.
    Either start your ground work, or shut up. Show us how to do it.

  15. John Morales says

    [OT]

    Matrim, this is the newer, more moderated, gentler Pharyngula.

    Back in the day, disputation was far more robust and contumacious.

  16. Jake Harban says

    @15, Troll:

    Hey, you don’t like democrats? Then shut the fuck up about them and ignore all political threads.

    How does this make any sense at all?

    The only coherent interpretation of this is that you treat the Democratic Party as a religion and are doing the standard religious line of “if you don’t worship my god, you have no right to talk about him.”

    But feel free to follow your own logic— if you don’t like my posts, then shut the fuck up and ignore them.

    Your inane analysis and hatred of Clinton didn’t do your agenda, if it was electing democrats, any good.

    Wow. You really are hopelessly confused.

    Maybe you shouldn’t complain about my “agenda” if you don’t even know what it is.

    All you did was cause folks to be even more alienated by the democrats due to your constant harangues that the democrats weren’t doing or behaving as you wanted them to.

    Now that’s some high quality projection. Throughout the entire campaign, you have made exactly one argument in favor of Clinton: “She opposes everything you stand for, but you have to vote for her anyway because you owe it to her.”

    If you can’t figure out how that alienates voters, you really need to work on your people skills.

    Who the fuck are you to dictate that?

    See, now this is why you lost the election. That, right there, in a nutshell.

    A substantial supermajority of the population decided that they did not want Clinton to be President, and your response is to shriek with rage: “Who are you to decide that?” How dare a couple hundred million lowly voters deny Her Majesty Hillary Clinton the White House that is hers by right?

    My money is that you won’t don’t anything other than loudly complain.

    How much money? You want to make this a bet, name a figure. Otherwise, shut up.

  17. Matrim says

    @18, John

    I was speaking in the more general sense rather than about pharyngula in particular, but that said I honestly don’t remember how things were back in the ScienceBlogs days. Don’t know if I just wasn’t as engaged or if I’m just getting old.

    Regardless, what’s going on here *waves hand at the general direction of the comments* doesn’t seem to be working…

  18. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    A substantial supermajority of the population decided that they did not want Clinton to be President,

    You’re fucking stupid. She is winning the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.
    Your inane harangues, here and elswhere, probably kept her vote down. Which is what YOU wanted.
    Those of us who can think knew better.

    You want to make this a bet, name a figure. Otherwise, shut up.

    It doesn’t matter. You won’t do a damn thing, and we both know it. You are just a blowhard talking, not a person of action.
    Show us how to elect progressive democrats. But that requires you to get out and actually do something.

  19. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    And Jake, by show, shut the fuck up and then in two and four years come back with YOUR results.
    I don’t have to listen to your fuckwittery, if you aren’t going to walk the walk.
    And you won’t.

  20. Azkyroth, B*Cos[F(u)]==Y says

    What about the people who voted for Clinton by not showing up or by marking a candidate with no chance of defeating her?

    Had she won you might have a point.

  21. Azkyroth, B*Cos[F(u)]==Y says

    In short, we need the Democrats to defeat Trump. We need the Democrats to block his agenda. If we want any sort of progress, we need the Democrats to do it. And that means we need to hold their feet to the fire when they don’t.

    Meanwhile, in the real world, this is what we’ve been saying all along, you dishonest little shit, as you’d notice if you weren’t so desperate to construct a fantasy world in which we’re blindly supporting everything the present party leadership says and does.

  22. Azkyroth, B*Cos[F(u)]==Y says

    Throughout the entire campaign, you have made exactly one argument in favor of Clinton

    This is plainly and simply a lie.

  23. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Jake Harban, with prima facie evidence he lies and bullshits:

    A substantial supermajority of the population

    Latest popular vote, which still being counted.
    Clinton is at 48.2% of the popular vote. Which means 51.8% didn’t vote for her. A bare majority. A supermajority would be up around 60% or higher. Lies, lies and lies. You need more than lies that are easily proven to be lies.
    You obviously are a stupid idiotlogue, who lies and distorts reality in your own mind, and tries to present your distortions as fact. Makes you utterly someone not to listen too. You have nothing to say that is realistic.

  24. Jake Harban says

    @21, 22, 26 Troll:

    You’re fucking stupid. She is winning the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.

    There are over 200 million eligible voters.

    Clinton won 65 million votes.

    Thus, less than a third of Americans supported Clinton for President.

    Meaning over two thirds of Americans did not support her. That’s a supermajority.

    That’s simple math; if you weren’t a deranged fanatic, you would have no trouble understanding it.

    Your inane harangues, here and elswhere, probably kept her vote down. Which is what YOU wanted.

    Ho hum. Just more lies from a brainless idiotlogue who thinks people have no right to vote.

    It doesn’t matter. You won’t do a damn thing, and we both know it. You are just a blowhard talking, not a person of action.

    Or in other words, you’re a coward who won’t put their money where their mouth is. Not that I couldn’t have guessed; it’s pretty obvious.

    If it “doesn’t matter,” how about $500? If I “don’t do a damn thing,” then I’ll pay you $500 but if I work to get progressive policies enacted, you pay me $500.

    Obviously you won’t take the bet, but it’s nice to get your cowardice on record.

    Show us how to elect progressive democrats. But that requires you to get out and actually do something.

    I don’t have to listen to your fuckwittery, if you aren’t going to walk the walk.
    And you won’t.

    That’s three separate accusations that I don’t actually work to support progressive policies. Time to put up or shut up— you want to take the bet or not?

    And Jake, by show, shut the fuck up and then in two and four years come back with YOUR results.

    I think you missed the boat— the results are already in.

    Obama ran in 2008 as an outsider promising liberal policies and won by a substantial margin. He didn’t actually deliver on those promises, but his victory proves that running as a liberal is successful.

    Sanders ran as a confirmed liberal promising liberal policies, and polls show he would have beaten Trump handily.

    But you decided to throw your vote away backing Clinton despite the fact that she isn’t viable, meaning electable by the general population.

    And rather than simply accept responsibility for your mistake, you decided to throw a screaming tantrum about how the evil voters denied your unelectable candidate the Presidency that you, as a deranged fanatic, believe was rightfully hers by definition.

    Clinton is at 48.2% of the popular vote. Which means 51.8% didn’t vote for her. A bare majority. A supermajority would be up around 60% or higher.

    Yet another trivially disproven lie.

    You’re forgetting to account for non-voters; far more people didn’t vote at all than voted for Clinton. Once you count all the people who didn’t support her, support for Clinton drops to about a third— meaning that 66%, or a supermajority, didn’t vote for her.

    And if you really want to blow your mind, consider the fact that over half the people who voted for her did so grudgingly out of fear of Trump and despite opposing her— meaning that only about 15% of Americans actually supported her and a whopping 85% opposed her.

    Only in the mind of a deluded idiotlogue like you can a candidate hated by 85% of the population be considered a viable contender for office.

    @23, 24, 25 Azkyroth:

    Had she won you might have a point.

    So are you claiming that anything other than a vote for the second-place finisher counts as a vote for the winner? I’m not sure I follow your (il)logic.

    Meanwhile, in the real world, this is what we’ve been saying all along, you dishonest little shit, as you’d notice if you weren’t so desperate to construct a fantasy world in which we’re blindly supporting everything the present party leadership says and does.

    Are you fucking kidding me?

    I’ve been one of the few people willing to criticize the Democrats while everyone else blindly supports them. In this very thread, half a dozen people (including PZ himself) denounced or insulted me for failing to blindly support the Democrats. And now you claim that “everyone” has been criticizing the Democrats all along?

    Name one policy so odious you’d never support anyone in favor of it. Remember that? I asked it a lot before the election and I never got an answer. Now that you’ve invented a fantasy world in which “everyone” is willing to abstain from blind support of the Democratic Party, perhaps you can name a couple of things that would convince you to drop support for a particular Democratic candidate.

    This is plainly and simply a lie.

    Then link to another argument they’ve made.

  25. John Morales says

    Jake Harban:

    There are over 200 million eligible voters.

    Clinton won 65 million votes.

    Thus, less than a third of Americans supported Clinton for President.

    Meaning over two thirds of Americans did not support her. That’s a supermajority.

    Yes, but her opponent had millions less votes than she did.

    Therefore, a super-supermajority did not support her opponent.

    That’s simple math; if you weren’t a deranged fanatic, you would have no trouble understanding it.

    But anything you write about Clinton’s lack of support is even more true of her opponent!

    (Motes and beams)

    The rest of it goes along the same vein.

    It’s rather ironic, actually. The entire supposed justification for the Electoral College is that direct democracy is not to be trusted, because it might lead to an unfit but populist demagogue being elected.

    “The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.”
    The Federalist Papers : No. 68

    (Of course, in 1788 the idea that information would be instantaneously be disseminated throughout the USA was but a fantasy, so that this provision made some sense)

  26. John Morales says

    PS for a bit more specificity as to the bias in the system:

    So the election was rigged in the sense that the Founding Fathers created a system that, at this point in history, tilts the playing field in favor of candidates who appeal to low-population states and a small set of contested “swing” states, rather than those who appeal to big urban centers in population-rich states that are not contested.

    First, the swing states: By giving all the electors in a swing state to the candidate who wins that state, even if only by a small number of votes, the system heavily favors the candidate who appeals to those few states. All the other states, where the candidates may win by much larger margins, become less relevant.

    In this election, Clinton won some of the most populous states in the nation – New York and California – by substantial margins. Texas was the largest state Trump won, but he won that by a much smaller margin. Of course, Trump won the important swing states, but also by very narrow margins. Because of the winner-take-all system, Trump’s narrow advantage in those few swing states mattered much more than Clinton’s massive advantage in the unconstested states.

    Second, basic math illustrates the point that all low-population states, not just swing states, are favored in this system. According to the last census (in 2010), Wyoming, the nation’s lowest population state, has just over 560,000 people. Those people get three electoral votes, or one per 186,000 people. California, our most populous state, has more than 37 million people. Those Californians have 55 electoral votes, or one per 670,000 people. Comparatively, people in Wyoming have nearly four times the power in the Electoral College as people in California. Put another way, if California had the same proportion of electoral votes per person as Wyoming, it would have about 200 electoral votes.

  27. applehead says

    @30,

    Okay, here goes: Chomsky for president? Would’ve failed, and failed hard. “Noam who? What’s that effete egghead doing behind that podium? SOCIALISM!”

    Rethuglicans would’ve cruised to victory with a “Trump talks, Chomsky lectures” campaign. Sometimes, dreams are the same thing as delusions.

  28. multitool says

    Yes I’d rather talk about fighing back.
    Last night I went to a volunteer dinner for our local Democrats and talked to everyone I could about what I/we can do, including some Bernie delegates. I got coordinators I can call. If people like me had been getting out the vote six months ago we wouldn’t be in this mess.

    In short, local elections are our life and death arena right now, everything from school boards on up.
    We need the cities and states to protect us from both what the fed does and what it will no longer do.

    An I also want to know the face of everyone I might someday have to hide in my attic.

  29. multitool says

    Last night I heard that scientists througout the EPA are being asked to fill out a questionaire for the Trumps, presumably to purge those who take climate change seriously. (I live near DC.)

    Purges in the civil service are unusual, but I imagine this will be the first of many.

  30. =8)-DX says

    Just chiming in with a note Re: Harban and his and other’s usage of “the left”. The Democratic party in the US is a right-to-centrist-at-best party. “Bipartisan” politics in the US is right-wing politics.

  31. Jake Harban says

    @28, John Morales:

    Yes, but her opponent had millions less votes than she did.
    Therefore, a super-supermajority did not support her opponent.

    Correct. A supermajority opposes right-wing candidate Clinton and a bigger supermajority opposes fascist candidate Trump.

    What lesson do we learn from this? How about “try running liberal candidates.” A near-universally despised candidate like Trump was able to sneak into the White House only because his major opponent was almost as bad as he was.

    Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to get liberal candidates to run as Democrats if we’ve already committed to supporting Democrats no matter what. Chanting “vote blue no matter who” and declaring the Democratic Party should be beyond criticism makes us politically irrelevant— politicians don’t need to earn the votes of people who have already pledged to vote for them no matter what.

    But anything you write about Clinton’s lack of support is even more true of her opponent!
    (Motes and beams)

    Correct. Everything I wrote about Clinton is more true of Trump. Clinton has a mote in her eye; Trump has a beam in his.

    But I think we’d have better luck convincing the Democrats to remove the mote from their eye than convincing the Republicans to remove the beam from theirs.

    It’s rather ironic, actually. The entire supposed justification for the Electoral College is that direct democracy is not to be trusted, because it might lead to an unfit but populist demagogue being elected.

    The actual justification for the electoral college was to guarantee that right-wing aristocrats who supported slavery would always control the government no matter what the people wanted. The idea that democracy might produce a “popular demagogue” was more pretext than anything.

    The fact that the electoral college gave us a demagogue opposed by over 90% of the population is no more surprising or ironic than the fact that anti-choicers oppose prenatal care.

    @30, A V Sandi Nack:

    I note no one is actually discussing the OP. Coulda been an interesting conversation.

    Chomsky doesn’t seem the sort who’d become a candidate and in any case I don’t know enough to determine whether I’d support a hypothetical President Chomsky.

    Warren would probably make a perfectly decent President, but I think she’s better as a Senator; her strongest suit is financial regulation while she’s weaker on foreign policy so better to have her on the Senate Banking Committee handling the former than in the White House handling the latter.

    Biden would have been another triangulating disaster, scarcely better than Clinton if at all.

    @34, =8)-DX:

    Just chiming in with a note Re: Harban and his and other’s usage of “the left”. The Democratic party in the US is a right-to-centrist-at-best party. “Bipartisan” politics in the US is right-wing politics.

    Yes, I’m well aware that the Democratic Party is right of center— I’ve been trying to explain as much since before the election.

    However, while there’s no liberal party, there’s no shortage of liberal voters. Many of them vote for the Democratic Party simply because they’re less right-wing than the Republicans.

    The problem is that many of them don’t quite seem to grasp the implications of “lesser evil.” They don’t just vote for right-wing Democrats due to lack of other options, they give Democrats a pass on their right-wing policy simply for being the “lesser evil.”

    And that makes it impossible to claim that the left doesn’t actually support right-wing policies. If Trump were politically savvy (which, thankfully, he is not) he could answer liberal objections to his policies by pointing out those same liberals’ support for similar policies advanced by Democrats.

  32. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    A supermajority opposes right-wing candidate Clinton and a bigger supermajority opposes fascist candidate Trump.

    No president in recent history has had a majority by your warped and useless defintion. What a loser you are, using terms nobody else uses or understands.
    Try doing real research, and following your own claim of “citation needed”. You need to present citations to back up your fuckwitery. You fail this time and time again. So you end up with idiocy on your face when you are refuted.
    Now, what the fuck will YOU do other than hector us with your attitude of abuse?
    You aren’t doing anything positive, just venting at us, who are not your enemies.
    I’m not doing anything you inanely and stupidly say. You are not worth listening to.

  33. Jake Harban says

    @36, Troll:

    Your entire post is just one big shrieking tantrum from a deranged fanatic. It makes no statement coherent enough to be merely wrong. Everyone in this thread is dumber for having read it. Since there is no claim for me to answer, I’ll just award you this picture of some toast. Now scram— the adults are talking.

  34. multitool says

    Could everybody share what they are doing in real life right now save the country/planet?
    This fight will need as many ideas and examples as possible.

  35. rietpluim says

    @Jake Harban – PZ has always been very critical about Obama and Clinton. Supporting them in absence of someone better – especially if the alternative is Trump – is not the same as supporting torture, war, or mass spying. If you can’t comprehend something as simple as that, you don’t get to be smug to others about simple math.

  36. Anri says

    Jake Harban @# 35:

    Chanting “vote blue no matter who” and declaring the Democratic Party should be beyond criticism makes us politically irrelevant

    (Emphasis added)

    Wait, wait, who was doing that?
    Can you be specific? Quote where the folks here said anything at all like that?
    Thanks in advance.

  37. Saad says

    rietplum, #39

    @Jake Harban – PZ has always been very critical about Obama and Clinton. Supporting them in absence of someone better – especially if the alternative is Trump – is not the same as supporting torture, war, or mass spying. If you can’t comprehend something as simple as that, you don’t get to be smug to others about simple math.

    It’s not worth anyone’s time arguing with people like Jake. They talk about some imaginary election and not the 2016 election. I think I explained the simple binary nature of this election in plain words to them once, but they’re just one of those people.