The President Tweets on Memorial Day

[Wayward Son]

The President made a nice tweet yesterday:

We can never truly repay the debt we owe our fallen heroes. But we can remember them, honor their sacrifice, and affirm in our own lives those enduring ideals of justice, equality, and opportunity for which generations of Americans have given that last full measure of devotion.

A bit trite, but classy.  Appeals to the ideals of our great nation.

Unfortunately, that was President Obama.  This is what President Trump tweeted:

Happy Memorial Day! Those who died for our great country would be very happy and proud at how well our country is doing today. Best economy in decades, lowest unemployment numbers for Blacks and Hispanics EVER (& women in 18years), rebuilding our Military and so much more. Nice!

I'm sure you all had a festive Memorial Day, remembering those whose lives were cut short to allow the opportunity for the economy to get better, unemployment to go down, and the military to be rebuilt.  Fun times!  And we all know who gets the credit for those things, right?

This is what the Republicans gave us for a President. 

[TheDrake]

Ugh

[Fenring]

This is what the Republicans gave us for a President. 

The rest of your commentary is fair play but I think we've been over the issue of whose "fault" it is that Trump was elected (hint: not just Republicans).

[Wayward Son]

An argument can be made about whose fault it was that Trump was elected President.

No argument can be made about who made Trump the Republican nominee. 

The Republican Party has complete responsibility for that.

[Fenring]

No argument can be made about who made Trump the Republican nominee. 

The Republican Party has complete responsibility for that.

But the GOP fought him at every turn. Or are you suggesting that by trying to do so with incorrect strategy, and therefore failing, they have "complete responsibility" for his nomination? I think that's a bit harsh. Arguably you have more of a case to pin the blame specifically on his individual opponents who wouldn't bow out of the race to rally together to defeat him. And even then it's tough to give them 100% of the blame since there were other factors in play.

[TheDrake]

I agree, the GOP fought Trump almost as hard as the DNC fought Sanders. Unless you think they had an obligation to keep him out of the Republican primary. From what I understand, the case law is murky on this. Once the primary went forward, they really had little choice but to anoint Trump as the guy who got almost twice as many votes as Ted Cruz, almost three times the delegates, and four times as many states.

But if we blame "Republicans" are we talking about party leadership, or the larger body of Americans who register and identify as "Republicans"? The former might not deserve criticism, but the latter certainly do, especially since large numbers of that group continue to defend and support him.

By criticism and blame here, I really mean "responsibility" since it is a matter of opinion whether Trump is a dumpster fire or a glorious beacon of greatness.

[Wayward Son]

No argument can be made about who made Trump the Republican nominee. 

The Republican Party has complete responsibility for that.

But the GOP fought him at every turn. Or are you suggesting that by trying to do so with incorrect strategy, and therefore failing, they have "complete responsibility" for his nomination? I think that's a bit harsh. Arguably you have more of a case to pin the blame specifically on his individual opponents who wouldn't bow out of the race to rally together to defeat him. And even then it's tough to give them 100% of the blame since there were other factors in play.

So let me get this straight.  The American voters are not responsible for electing Trump because they were really voting against Hillary.  The Republican Party is not responsible for nominating Trump because their leadership fought against his nomination.  The Republican voters are not responsible for nominating Trump because a majority of them voted for someone else.

IOW, in this great democracy, no one is responsible for electing the President of the United States? 

By the Republican Party, I mean every person who identifies as a Republican and voted for Trump as their nominee.  And every member who agreed to support the eventual nominee, whomever it was.  Sure, the leadership didn't want Trump to be the nominee, but after he won by their rules, they supported him.  As did those Republicans who supported him once he won the nomination, whether they personally voted for him or not.

None of these people had to support him.  They chose to.  They have complete responsibility.

It's time for the "Party of Personal Responsibility" to own up to their personal responsibility:

Those who voted for Donald Trump for President are partly responsible for him being elected President.

Those who voted to nominate Donald Trump are partly responsible for him becoming the nominee.

Your vote counts, whether you like it or not.

Everyone who ever cast a vote for this man chose to vote for this man.  This is the man you wanted as President.  This is the man you help elect.  Take responsibility for it.

[Fenring]

WS, you seem to be operating under the strange premise that the majority of Americans had significant input into the quality of their Presidential representation. Contrariwise, the general takeaway many people have gathered from this election is that the events were either (a) rigged, (b) a no-win scenario without any good choices, or (c) a fool's game where a vote just legitimizes one person or another who you don't believe in. Some of these overlap.

Blaming the populace for a broken system seems like blame-shifting to me. Isn't the U.S. a representative democracy? If it was a direct democracy you might have a point. As if the American people 'voted' for money to dominate politics.

[D.W.]

IDK, I think a narrative where nobody has to accept responsibility for Trump is a plausible path out of the partisan quagmire. 

[TheDrake]

Absolutely Republicans had significant input. They had the opportunity to vote for Johnson or to abstain - not to mention all the primary time where fear of Hillary was never a factor. Republicans had unprecedented choice, 17 different candidates at the start that they could have supported with money or through poll support.

Many of these got knocked out of the "hungry for power" games in Iowa, when guys like Chris Christie, Rick Santorum, and Jeb! were still around. Trump was squarely in the top three with Cruz and Rubio.

Republican voters absolutely picked Trump every step of the way. At the end of April CT, DE, MD, PA, and RI all said clearly "Trump! Trump! Trump!" The man had 1500 delegates to Cruz's 500. From November of 2015, Trump led all polls and never looked back. That's a mandate, not a reluctant choice.

As for money dominating, that's no excuse for multiple reasons. Two big ones are that you shouldn't be voting based on how many ads or bumper stickers you see, and that Cruz and Jeb! had far bigger war chests than Trump. He spent historically low amounts for a winning candidate.

[Wayward Son]

WS, you seem to be operating under the strange premise that the majority of Americans had significant input into the quality of their Presidential representation. Contrariwise, the general takeaway many people have gathered from this election is that the events were either (a) rigged, (b) a no-win scenario without any good choices, or (c) a fool's game where a vote just legitimizes one person or another who you don't believe in. Some of these overlap.

Blaming the populace for a broken system seems like blame-shifting to me. Isn't the U.S. a representative democracy? If it was a direct democracy you might have a point. As if the American people 'voted' for money to dominate politics.

I'm not blaming "the majority of Americans."  Where did you get that idea? 

A majority of Americans did not vote for Trump.  In fact, a majority of voters did not vote for Trump.

I'm blaming those who actually voted or supported Donald Trump for President, in the nomination process and/or his presidential run.

When you vote for someone, you are saying "I want this person to be President."  That's what a vote means!

Sure, a large number of people thought neither major candidate was a good choice, probably a majority of Americans.  Most of them simply didn't vote.  Quite a few voted for 3rd party candidates.  Others voted for Hillary, and still others voted for Trump.

As The Drake pointed out, there were 16 other candidates for the Republicans to choose from, plus all the independent candidates.

But enough people voted for Trump to make him the Republican nominee and then President.

These people bear the responsibility of their vote.  They chose to vote for this man.  They said, "We want this man to be President."  And they got their wish.

Now they bear the responsibility for their actions.

Not the majority of Americans.  Those who actively voted for him.

[Gaoics79]

An argument can be made about whose fault it was that Trump was elected President.

No argument can be made about who made Trump the Republican nominee. 

The Republican Party has complete responsibility for that.

I disagree strongly. In point of fact, the billions of free publicity handed to him by the media is largely responsible. You could almost call it an act of sabotage.

[TheDrake]

I disagree strongly. In point of fact, the billions of free publicity handed to him by the media is largely responsible. You could almost call it an act of sabotage.

You could give David Duke lots of free publicity and I'm not going to vote for the man. Just because you hear about someone over and over again doesn't mean you ought to vote for them. The general point is that the media helped The Donald get the message out, but a strong plurality of Republican voters LIKED it and APPROVED of it.

Build that Wall
Lock her Up
Drain the Swamp

Monosyllabic three word phrases that read more like a Steven Seagal filmography than thoughtful policies. But no, it must be the publicity exerting some kind of mind control on the public. 

[Wayward Son]

An argument can be made about whose fault it was that Trump was elected President.

No argument can be made about who made Trump the Republican nominee. 

The Republican Party has complete responsibility for that.

I disagree strongly. In point of fact, the billions of free publicity handed to him by the media is largely responsible. You could almost call it an act of sabotage.

So you're saying that people have no responsibility for the way they vote?  That they are just pawns that media moves around at their whim?  That they have no individual agency and can't make decisions for themselves?

Yes, people were influenced by the media coverage.  But as TheDrake pointed out, it was mostly negative coverage.  My theory is that it simply wasn't enough to overcome the initial positive impression people had of Trump from seeing him on The Apprentice.  Not to mention that he was using the catch phrases of their group, identifying himself as "one of them."  So while the media coverage kept Trump in people's minds, they are still the ones who bought his message and decided to vote for him, actually in spite of what the media were saying about him.

While we are all influenced by advertising and the media, almost always more than we realize, we are still responsible for our own actions.  Which means that those who voted for Trump are responsible for electing him.

Otherwise, why even bother with elections?

[TheDrake]

You know that the Post and every tv network thought they were going to torpedo Trump with the Access Hollywood tapes, but he defied the political laws of physics. Far from diminishing his support, you saw significant numbers of Republican voters going to his rallies with t-shirts celebrating his vulgarity. Some Republican voters certainly found his remarks distasteful, but even establishment republicans defended it as "locker room talk". As if an accomplished man on a bus with microphones for a TV show is equivalent to a Junior High School locker room.

Yup, his supporters own that part of him too, that publicity ought to have diminished his support.

Republicans didn’t love the tape. Forty-eight percent of them said it gave them a less favorable impression of their party’s nominee. But they were mostly persuaded by the apology video Trump released on Facebook late Friday night (65 percent of Republicans viewed him more favorable after watching it, as opposed to only 37 percent of voters overall).

52% thought this was fine, no problem. The others said it was bad, but gave Trump a do-over.

[Fenring]

While we are all influenced by advertising and the media, almost always more than we realize, we are still responsible for our own actions.  Which means that those who voted for Trump are responsible for electing him.

Let's say you were a Republican in this past election cycle. Who would *you* have voted for? And as a bonus question, assuming you hated the establishment and wanted a change, who would you have voted for?

The people who voted are responsible for their votes, but not responsible for the selection of candidates. If you can tell me there was an amazing candidate their who was rejected in favor of Trump I may see your side of it. If not then I don't see how the voters had much to do with the result. You would have been dissatisfied no matter what for various reasons.

I'll throw in to this the fact that after Bernie was eliminated from the running, TONS of liberals and Democrats went berserk trying to convince all of Bernie's supporters to vote for Hillary in order to beat Trump. Forget your beliefs, they said, and just do what's right so that we don't get Trump. That was the argument they made and made no bones about it. Nothing nice was said about Hillary, only that the alternative needed to be prevented. So why is that argument ok, but not that Trump should be voted for to prevent the alternative? And why aren't you now blaming the Democrats who voted for Hillary for Trump's win? Maybe if they'd voted for Bernie and he'd been the candidate he would have won (I think he would have). How is it 'not their fault' but it's all the fault of the Republicans? When your side doesn't do the right thing and it enables the other side to win I don't see how you can only cast blame on the other side. It's like making an error in baseball and then blaming the fans of the other team when they score. How about don't drop the ball.

I've argued many times here that voting for someone should mean that you approve of that person, and if you don't approve of anyone you should spoil your ballot or not vote. But the prevailing wisdom seems to be that strategic voting is necessary (it only is if people en masse think it is; it's a mob mentality scenario). Once that's the case you can't argue any more that voting for someone means anything in particular about that someone. I'm sure some people legitimately do like Trump, but I don't see a straight line to lay his win at the feet of the voters.

[Grant]

An argument can be made about whose fault it was that Trump was elected President.

No argument can be made about who made Trump the Republican nominee. 

The Republican Party has complete responsibility for that.

In defense of the GOP, I'd like to point out that only 44.95% of voted for him in the primaries, which includes some Independents and Democrats in open primaries.  Only 88% of avowed Republicans voted for him during the general.  8% of avowed Democrats voted for him, and 46% of Independents. In contrast, 93% of avowed Republicans voted for Romney and 90% for McCain.  Only 89% of Democrats voted for President Obama in 2008, the same percentage who voted for Clinton in 2016.  I honestly feel that the Republicans did their part and more to lose the Presidential election of 2016.  Next time we'll try nominating Rosanne Barr.  Hopefully that's not too tough an opponent for you.  Try not and lose Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania this time by razor thin margins.  I would suggest Oprah, though I suppose Biden might make due, if you want to run "the only white man older than Trump in America."     

I'm sure some of us would feel better if we could point a finger at somebody or some race or some news network or some foreign intelligence operation.  But the fact of the matter is that the circumstances were so absolutely unusual and came together to form such a perfect storm of completely unlikely events, down to the last minute, that I honestly am willing to entertain the regularly outlandish idea that a supreme being, or even a supreme evil being, or even *censored*ing aliens were responsible for the election of prarartrateirathghlagkjhehhg Donald Trump, as punishment for our many failings.  Otherwise, there is plenty of blame to go around for every single swinging Richard in America.  We got the pprerrestrighhtaosht that we deserve, and we're getting it good and hard. 

[TheDrake]

According to Real Clear Politics, Trump received about 13.3 million votes during the primary. That’s about 1.8 million votes more than the previous record, held by George W. Bush.

And that with a relatively crowded and contentious primary, which does reflect in the percentage that represents.

I don't buy the "but we had to" argument in the primary. Voters had three serious alternatives in Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio. In my opinion, Republican voters annointed a non-politician who blurted out whatever popped into his head, articulated their anger about various things they hate, and a birther who was the personification of anti-Obama sentiment.

[Grant]

I don't buy the "but we had to" argument in the primary. Voters had three serious alternatives in Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio. In my opinion, Republican voters annointed a non-politician who blurted out whatever popped into his head, articulated their anger about various things they hate, and a birther who was the personification of anti-Obama sentiment.

It sounds to me that 44.95% of Republicans and some Independents and Democrats anointed the ONLY Republican candidate that Hillary Clinton had a prayer of defeating (OK, probably Carson).  So I'm not sure why you're complaining.   

[TheDrake]

I didn't have any more desire to see Hillary in the Oval than Trump, and I would have preferred any of those three or Bernie to either of the Finalists. I'm complaining because Gary Johnson was a completely viable alternative for those with a libertarian lets shake things up mentality. I'm complaining because I have to endure a minimum of 30 months of tweets, threats, rants, and scandals.

Johnson mostly got gamed out with the "but if we split the vote, we will just get Hillary", the echoes of Nader voter regret.
 

[Grant]

I'm complaining because I have to endure a minimum of 30 months of tweets, threats, rants, and scandals.

Johnson mostly got gamed out with the "but if we split the vote, we will just get Hillary", the echoes of Nader voter regret.

You ain't alone, man.  But look at it this way;  all the poo ought to make it easy for you to win next time round. 

And yeah, the strategic vote thing is a problem, which is why I now fully subscribe to the Cardinal voting process.  Try getting that some traction.  Maybe you know someone, cause I don't. 

[TheDrake]

People get stymied by a butterfly ballot, and you want them to pick more candidates? Leading to more conspiracies about "the machine changed my vote"? But I can't entirely blame the voters for not going 3rd party when the major party stranglehold kept Johnson out of the debates, often not even being included in qualifying polls. Fat Chance any legislature is going to approve instant runoffs.

[Fenring]

And yeah, the strategic vote thing is a problem, which is why I now fully subscribe to the Cardinal voting process.  Try getting that some traction.  Maybe you know someone, cause I don't.

That would be good. I'm also ok with something where you'd be able to rate in order of preference without having to assign any score to someone you don't like. So out of 5 candidates 3 of them could be rated 1-3 and the other two are blank, meaning they get no 'points' or whatever.

I think a lot of what fuels strategic voting is negative voting, where a vote for someone is really a vote against someone else. So while the Cardinal system can have this as a built-in feature, for other systems it would be good to be able to maybe mark 1-2 candidates you like, and have the option to pick exactly one candidate that gets a big "NO" next to them for you, enabling you for vote against someone directly without having to vote for someone else specific. I could envision some people going to vote who only go to vote against someone without voting for anyone.

[TheDrake]

The person with the least NO votes wins? 

[D.W.]

May the most boring (or most disciplined) candidate win!

[Grant]

People get stymied by a butterfly ballot, and you want them to pick more candidates? Leading to more conspiracies about "the machine changed my vote"?

I'm looking forward to more kooky conspiracies.  They're my favorite.  They are nature's way of showing me who not to ever listen to again seriously. Like Rosanne saying that the Boston Bombing was a false flag.  And the people who said that the school shootings were false flags. And the people who say the Ghouta chemical attacks were a false flag.  Just about anybody who says the words "false flag". 

And yes, if you got to rate candidates instead of having to pick a single one, we'd do a lot towards reducing partisanship and tribalism and strategic voting and negative voting.  If they can't figure it out, too hard for them, they can kiss my grits.  You can demonstrate the concept to a band of 3rd graders in about 15-30 minutes. 

[NobleHunter]

I think a lot of what fuels strategic voting is negative voting, where a vote for someone is really a vote against someone else. So while the Cardinal system can have this as a built-in feature, for other systems it would be good to be able to maybe mark 1-2 candidates you like, and have the option to pick exactly one candidate that gets a big "NO" next to them for you, enabling you for vote against someone directly without having to vote for someone else specific. I could envision some people going to vote who only go to vote against someone without voting for anyone.

The big question of the current Ontario election is whether or not enough people will vote against Doug Ford to cost him the election. Since both of the other parties have some pretty major downsides, it'll be interesting to see what the electorate comes up with.

[TheDeamon]

A majority of Americans did not vote for Trump.  In fact, a majority of voters did not vote for Trump.

A Majority of Americans did not vote for any candidate. Both the actual voters themselves, and the American Public "at large" who couldn't be bothered to vote. Remember: Nobody cleared the 50%+1 vote threshold in the 2016 presidential race.

[TheDeamon]

And yeah, the strategic vote thing is a problem, which is why I now fully subscribe to the Cardinal voting process.  Try getting that some traction.  Maybe you know someone, cause I don't.

I think the easier solution is to mandate instant run-off for any non-caucus style primary selection process. No winner until a 50%+1 vote tally is achieved.

The biggest thing that helped Trump win was the fact he had 16 competitors at the onset and the opposition was heavily fragmented from the onset. Instant run-off would have resolved that very quickly.

[yossarian22c]

And yeah, the strategic vote thing is a problem, which is why I now fully subscribe to the Cardinal voting process.  Try getting that some traction.  Maybe you know someone, cause I don't.

I think the easier solution is to mandate instant run-off for any non-caucus style primary selection process. No winner until a 50%+1 vote tally is achieved.

The biggest thing that helped Trump win was the fact he had 16 competitors at the onset and the opposition was heavily fragmented from the onset. Instant run-off would have resolved that very quickly.

It would have also prevented the momentum (and future votes) he gained by "winning" a number of early primaries with ~30% of the vote.