On Bill Maher's proposed election strategies.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

So Bill Maher, noting the ineffectiveness of "taking the high road" against Trump last election, and lack of specifics in Democrats' talk of fighting back, has proposed a variety of alternatives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5jkYN_wG7c

I'm going to describe these alternatives one by one, and address possible ways they could backfire. I suggest watching the whole thing for context, but I'll describe where these things are mentioned so you know where to look if you want to look at them one by one.

A: Two and a half minute in, he proposes a montage of Trump babbling. If we do this, could the right then brand the left "able-ist"?

B: 3 minutes and 45 seconds in, he proposes making Trump out to have erectile difficulties. If we do this, what's stopping Trump from blaming his wife, like he's been known to do with other women?

C: 4 minutes in, he proposes filling the gallery with those who've accused Trump of sexual assault and/or sexual harassment. This seems like one of the better proposals in this video, but it sounds like it could firstly be used to smear the left as plagiarizing his ideas and/or

D: 4 minutes and 26 seconds in, jokes about his penis from those who have experience with it. Actual, more verifiable statements about his hideous appearance didn't work in 2016, so why would one from someone who could be smeared as biased against his political career? "Gun owners have small penises" didn't cut down on gun ownership, after all.

E: 5 minutes in, he proposes heckling and interrupting Trump at his speeches. Putting aside what's been known to happen to hecklers at Trump speeches, suppose you found someone with suicidal tendencies who had nothing to lose from interrupting a Trump speech. What then? Smearing the left as a bunch of unruly animals, especially if it happens more than once?

F: Last, but not least, 7 minutes in, proposing we use deepfakes to discredit Trump. Frankly, I think this is actually the worst proposal, as all this will do is tarnish the credibility of any REAL video footage that just so happens to be cited by liberals. And unlike the rest of this, there's not much precedent for conservatives doing the same.

All of the above carries one risk in common; the risk that they'll make the left out to be the real hypocrites, for condemning albe-ism, body-shaming, and heckling, only to turn around and do it themselves.

Above all else, the issue isn't Trump, but his supporters. Take away Trump, and they'll find a new demagogue to coalesce around. You need to aim at the root of the fire, and find out what made him popular in the first place, or else the same people will be electing demagogue after demagogue. I'd speculate that it's his stance on immigration; it's what made him stand out from the rest of the Republican primary rivals in the first place.

But whatever you think is so popular about him, that's what you need to address by picking a Democratic candidate that'd offer a real alternative. (Or alternatively, get everyone who presently doesn't vote to get off their asses and cast any anti-Trump vote next time.)

[Sundiata]

Democratic voters generally want progressive candidates like Bernie Sanders who don't take corporate PAC money.

The Democratic party establishment does not.

[USS Monitor]

A: Two and a half minute in, he proposes a montage of Trump babbling. If we do this, could the right then brand the left "able-ist"?

How do you brand that "ableist" without implying Trump is disabled? Also, accusing your opponents of "ableism" makes you sound snowflakey.

[Thermodolia]

I think you need a blog.

Also politics is dirty

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Question: why should anyone care what Bill Maher thinks?

[USS Monitor]

Democratic voters generally want progressive candidates like Bernie Sanders who don't take corporate PAC money.

The Democratic party establishment does not.

Actually, the voters are very split, and the progressive wing needs to wake up and understand that.

The party establishment knows the split exists, but doesn't always handle it well. A lot of Sanders supporters don't even seem to know the moderate voters exist, and that's a problem. It's harder to win people over if you don't even acknowledge that they exist.

[Vetalia]

The failure in 2016 wasn't due to the Democrats taking the high road, it was due to Hillary running an unbelievably half-assed and incompetent campaign. Not to mention basing attacks on erectile dysfunction and penis size sounds like something out of Idiocracy.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

The failure in 2016 wasn't due to the Democrats taking the high road, it was due to Hillary running an unbelievably half-assed and incompetent campaign.

It was due to the Electoral College having a Republican majority, which ignored the will of the people for the fourth time in American history.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

The failure in 2016 wasn't due to the Democrats taking the high road, it was due to Hillary running an unbelievably half-assed and incompetent campaign.

You shouldn't even need to campaign, if voters already prefer you.

[Vetalia]

It was due to the Electoral College having a Republican majority, which ignored the will of the people for the fourth time in American history.

I don't buy that at all. Trump flipped three historically Democratic states during the 2016 election: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and the Democrats also lost Ohio, which Obama won in 2008 and 2012. Hillary basically took those states for granted and made absolutely no effort to campaign there or anywhere else in the Midwest.

[Vetalia]

The failure in 2016 wasn't due to the Democrats taking the high road, it was due to Hillary running an unbelievably half-assed and incompetent campaign.

You shouldn't even need to campaign, if voters already prefer you.

Sounds like Hillary's strategy in the Midwest. However, if you don't, that means your opponent has free reign to convince people not to support you and the people in that state will undoubtedly feel that you don't really care about them as you couldn't be bothered to make the effort.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

It was due to the Electoral College having a Republican majority, which ignored the will of the people for the fourth time in American history.

I don't buy that at all. Trump flipped three historically Democratic states during the 2016 election: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and the Democrats also lost Ohio, which Obama won in 2008 and 2012. Hillary basically took those states for granted and made absolutely no effort to campaign there or anywhere else in the Midwest.

Which naturally played a role at the end of the day, but it doesn't change the fact that electors won't stomach the idea of emulating the popular vote if it means voting for someone from - God forbid - the OTHER party. Because who gives a shit what the majority of Americans want, gotta get me and the boys in power.

[Vetalia]

Which naturally played a role at the end of the day, but it doesn't change the fact that electors won't stomach the idea of emulating the popular vote if it means voting for someone from - God forbid - the OTHER party. Because who gives a shit what the majority of Americans want, gotta get me and the boys in power.

Generally, they do, though; in the 2016 election there were only 7 "faithless electors" who went against their states' popular vote. I'm not even sure if switching to awarding electoral votes based on the results of the popular vote would have significantly affected the outcome of the election.

[New haven america]

It was due to the Electoral College having a Republican majority, which ignored the will of the people for the fourth time in American history.

I don't buy that at all. Trump flipped three historically Democratic states during the 2016 election: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and the Democrats also lost Ohio, which Obama won in 2008 and 2012. Hillary basically took those states for granted and made absolutely no effort to campaign there or anywhere else in the Midwest.

And yet Hillary had ~3 million more votes than Trump did.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Which naturally played a role at the end of the day, but it doesn't change the fact that electors won't stomach the idea of emulating the popular vote if it means voting for someone from - God forbid - the OTHER party. Because who gives a shit what the majority of Americans want, gotta get me and the boys in power.

Generally, they do, though; in the 2016 election there were only 7 "faithless electors" who went against their states' popular vote. I'm not even sure if switching to awarding electoral votes based on the results of the popular vote would have significantly affected the outcome of the election.

Here's an idea: abolish the electoral college altogether and have the president elected by popular vote. You know, like how every other election in the country is handled?

[Vetalia]

Here's an idea: abolish the electoral college altogether and have the president elected by popular vote. You know, like how every other election in the country is handled?

I disagree, the electoral college serves an important role by giving the minority a stronger voice and requiring a potential candidate to appeal to as broad a population as possible and to address the needs and concerns of as many different populations as possible. It is an important protection against the tyranny of the maority; it makes no sense to me that someone should be able to rule over the entire nation simply by winning 1 more vote than their opponent, especially given that population does not always translate to national importance. I similarly believe we should repeal the 17th Amendment for the same reason but that is a completely different topic warranting its own thread.

That being said, I do believe there is room for compromise by allocating electoral votes on the basis of the popular vote; this would make opposing votes in solidly Democratic or Republican states matter while still preserving the important protections this system provides.

[Iridencia]

The story of Trump and the 2016 election is not the story of the success of the Republicans, but of the failure of the Democrats.

Democrats rely too hard on the assumption that being "less bad" than the opposition is good enough to get them votes, when we've seen time and time again that it's clearly not. It doesn't matter how badly the Republicans might be behaving in an objective sense, if that badness is popular, it is a force to be reckoned with.

I often say that the flaws of the right-wing and the left-wing can be respectively attributed to "little picture" mentality and "big picture" mentality. When it comes to liberals and the left (and I say this as someone on that side), we tend to get so focused on "the bigger picture" that we start to neglect and be dismissive towards the smaller components that that bigger picture rests on, and then wonder what the hell happened when that erosion catches up to us. We think that being technically correct in a broader sense when thought about for long enough is good enough, and believe that that absolves us from translating that broader truth in a more practical, personal-focused plan.

So: It may be technically true in a bigger sense that anyone at this point is better than Trump and we should just swallow our pride to go against him, but the last election taught us that the American people are simply not going to play that game. It doesn't matter how much you yell at the voters, "You're ruining everything! Just do it! Just do it! But I'm right!!" it's not going to change their minds. So if the bigger picture isn't convincing by itself, guess what, it's time to focus on the details of your message. Clever people can spin the same truth in different appealing ways — that used to be the art of politics before outright lies and scene-making took over.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Here's an idea: abolish the electoral college altogether and have the president elected by popular vote. You know, like how every other election in the country is handled?

I disagree, the electoral college serves an important role by giving the minority a stronger voice and requiring a potential candidate to appeal to as broad a population as possible and to address the needs and concerns of as many different populations as possible. It is an important protection against the tyranny of the maority; it makes no sense to me that someone should be able to rule over the entire nation simply by winning 1 more vote than their opponent, especially given that population does not always translate to national importance. I similarly believe we should repeal the 17th Amendment for the same reason but that is a completely different topic warranting its own thread.

That being said, I do believe there is room for compromise by allocating electoral votes on the basis of the popular vote; this would make opposing votes in solidly Democratic or Republican states matter while still preserving the important protections this system provides.

Often times the minority - when it comes to politics, that is - is the minority for a good reason. The NSDAP was the minority, and yet...

[Paddy O Fernature]

Wait, last election was "Taking the high road" against Trump?

.......

Oh my.

[New haven america]

Here's an idea: abolish the electoral college altogether and have the president elected by popular vote. You know, like how every other election in the country is handled?

I disagree, the electoral college serves an important role by giving the minority a stronger voice and requiring a potential candidate to appeal to as broad a population as possible and to address the needs and concerns of as many different populations as possible. It is an important protection against the tyranny of the maority; it makes no sense to me that someone should be able to rule over the entire nation simply by winning 1 more vote than their opponent, especially given that population does not always translate to national importance. I similarly believe we should repeal the 17th Amendment for the same reason but that is a completely different topic warranting its own thread.

That being said, I do believe there is room for compromise by allocating electoral votes on the basis of the popular vote; this would make opposing votes in solidly Democratic or Republican states matter while still preserving the important protections this system provides.

In most cases there are good reasons for the minority being the minority.

In this case it's because the Republican Party in America is considered by most other developed nations as a right-wing extremist group. Which is basically what they are.

[The Lone Alliance]

I don't buy that at all. Trump flipped three historically Democratic states during the 2016 election: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and the Democrats also lost Ohio, which Obama won in 2008 and 2012. Hillary basically took those states for granted and made absolutely no effort to campaign there or anywhere else in the Midwest.

And yet Hillary had ~3 million more votes than Trump did.

And that doesn't matter in the slightest.
The popular vote means nothing.

It has never meant anything.

The silly thing is that you don't need the popular vote to beat Trump. Hillary could have easily won the electoral college vote just as much as the popular vote.

[New haven america]

And yet Hillary had ~3 million more votes than Trump did.

And that doesn't matter in the slightest.
The popular vote means nothing.

It has never meant anything.

It has in literally every other developed country, and it means something against Vetalia's argument.

There, 33 examples that prove your point wrong right there.

[Vetalia]

Often times the minority - when it comes to politics, that is - is the minority for a good reason. The NSDAP was the minority, and yet...

The President of Germany was elected by direct popular election and the Reichstag by proportionate results from the popular vote. I don't think that's a good example for you to use to agitate for more democracy in government as it clearly shows the dangers of democracy in its most clear form. Had the Weimar Republic a system like that in the United States, it's unlikely the Nazis would have ever been able to rise to power.

[The Lone Alliance]

It has in literally every other developed country, and it means something against Vetalia's argument.

There, 33 examples that prove your point wrong right there.

The US is not those other countries, for all it's right things and wrong things the US is the US, if you like those other developed countries so much, move to it.

Then you can have your popular vote.

Again if you really think that the Democrats can't win without the popular vote then you really have no faith in the Democrats.

[Vetalia]

In most cases there are good reasons for the minority being the minority.

In this case it's because the Republican Party in America is considered by most other developed nations as a right-wing extremist group. Which is basically what they are.

I don't mean minority in terms of ideology, I mean minority in terms of population. The Electoral College is designed to protect against tyranny of the majority by giving the minority a disproportionate voice in electing the person who will represent the entire nation as President. Ironically, back in the early days of the Republic this was one of the things that helped the Union stop the expansion of slavery and ensure a Republican victory in the 1860 election.

And really, who considers the Republican Party a right-wing extremist group? Nothing in their platform is extreme by any means.