World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[prfsnl_gmr]

That isn't because they freaked, it's because they organized.

I saw absolutely no evidence of this organization - at least on the national level - during the 2016 campaign season...

You weren't looking in the right place then. When Trump ended up with the candidacy, the major fundraisers of the GOP turned away and went for all of those state and Congressional races. Suddenly millions flooded in to win those races that ordinarily would have been reserved for the presidential election. That is where the organizing went.

Did they though? Based on what I can find the amount spent per candidate on elections for House and Senate seats was almost equal. Also, and as far as I can tell, we really shouldn't be worried about the Citizen's United decision any more since it becoming increasingly obvious that more spending doesn't really sway elections one way or another.

[J T]

Like I said Ack, I sincerely hope my gloomy predictions are wrong. In terms of a 'what the hell do I do now' though, I need to understand what the worst case scenarios might be so that I can hopefully do something to prevent them from happening other than putting on a Snuggie, drinking a warm cup of Swiss Miss, and rocking back and forth telling myself "it'll all be ok."

For me, it's going to mean getting even more politically active to fight off the horribleness, while also taking advantage of what I can now to enjoy what we still have. For example, I'm convinced that climate change will kill us all, so I'm trying to appreciate as much of the natural wonders of the world as I can now before they die off tomorrow. I went snorkeling in the Great Barrier Reef in 2014 just before it became massively bleached in 2015 and is now in critical condition. I went to the Grand Canyon in 2015 just before the Koch-brother-funded republicans started making plans in 2016 to mine it for uranium. These were two of the most meaningful and wonderous journeys of my life. I'm in a race against time to experience as much of the beautiful parts of our planet as I can before they are gone, and I'm fighting politically to try to slow the process so I can enjoy life that much longer.

[Sarge]

Coral has been around a long, long time. According to estimates, around 540 million years! And there were quite a few extinction events during that time, so I'm not terribly concerned about its ability to rebound.

[Ack]

Did they though? Based on what I can find the amount spent per candidate on elections for House and Senate seats was almost equal. Also, and as far as I can tell, we really shouldn't be worried about the Citizen's United decision any more since it becoming increasingly obvious that more spending doesn't really sway elections one way or another.

The Koch brothers, either by themselves or via super PACs they developed, contributed to local or congressional raises in 43 out of 50 states, including senate, house, and gubernatorial elections. Originally they estimated in 2015 that they'd be raising and spending nearly $900 million in this election cycle, though they backed off from that figure around May of this year and claimed they'd be spending less on elections. That said, their influence alone in your local politics is pretty interesting:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politi ... 14097.html

http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/201 ... rs-funding

http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2016/06/23 ... e-network/

https://www.facingsouth.org/2016/11/koc ... tate-races

In general according to OpenSecrets, Republican candidates in the House raised and spent about $100 million more than Democrat opponents, while Republican senate candidates raised about $50 million more but spent nearly $100 million more than their Democrat opponents.

As for the presidential race, the Trump campaign spent far less money than the Clinton campaign, yes, but the New York Times estimated Trump received $2 billion in free advertising via the media by March. By May, MarketWatch estimated that number was at $3 billion.

[Exhuminator]

Coral has been around a long, long time. According to estimates, around 540 million years! And there were quite a few extinction events during that time, so I'm not terribly concerned about its ability to rebound.

Yeah coral is tough stuff. It'll outlast us:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/scien ... hange.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ear-death/

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/media-room/lat ... al-rebound

And I'll throw J T a bone:

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/int ... dex_en.htm

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/27/ ... hange.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... right-now/

https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2016/ ... share.html

http://www.publicfinanceinternational.o ... ble-energy

But this is the thing I worry about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

[Sarge]

Of course, not all of the free advertising Trump got could be considered favorable. It was certainly so during the primaries, and then you could see the turn against him in the general. Although they still covered him, because he was a ratings bonanza.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Did they though? Based on what I can find the amount spent per candidate on elections for House and Senate seats was almost equal. Also, and as far as I can tell, we really shouldn't be worried about the Citizen's United decision any more since it becoming increasingly obvious that more spending doesn't really sway elections one way or another.

The Koch brothers, either by themselves or via super PACs they developed, contributed to local or congressional raises in 43 out of 50 states, including senate, house, and gubernatorial elections. Originally they estimated in 2015 that they'd be raising and spending nearly $900 million in this election cycle, though they backed off from that figure around May of this year and claimed they'd be spending less on elections. That said, their influence alone in your local politics is pretty interesting:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politi ... 14097.html

http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/201 ... rs-funding

http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2016/06/23 ... e-network/

https://www.facingsouth.org/2016/11/koc ... tate-races

In general according to OpenSecrets, Republican candidates in the House raised and spent about $100 million more than Democrat opponents, while Republican senate candidates raised about $50 million more but spent nearly $100 million more than their Democrat opponents.

As for the presidential race, the Trump campaign spent far less money than the Clinton campaign, yes, but the New York Times estimated Trump received $2 billion in free advertising via the media by March. By May, MarketWatch estimated that number was at $3 billion.

I am pretty familiar with the Burr-Ross race, and while a lot of money from outside of the state flowed into the race, I think that spending between the candidates ended up almost equal. Also, if you break down the OpenSecrets data a little bit, it appears that the spending between the two parties on a per candidate basis is approximately equal. (The Republicans spent more money, but they also fielded more candidates in the primaries.)

My point is that the Republican candidates were not that much better organized and better funded than their Democratic counterparts in the down-ballot races that you can attribute their overwhelming success at every level of government to their superior fundraising and organization. Moreover, they certainly weren't well-organized at the top of the ballot; so, their overwhelming success at every level during the 2016 elections appears to have hinged on something else entirely.

And, my half-joking theory that it hinged on "conservative outrage" has just as much evidence in support of it as the overwhelming majority of articles and social media "rants" floating around the internet right now. If the 2016 elections teach us nothing else, they should teach us that "professional political commentators" have absolutely no idea what they are doing and are no more qualified to predict election results or divine the forces driving the electorate's decisions than anyone else.

Of course, not all of the free advertising Trump got could be considered favorable. It was certainly so during the primaries, and then you could see the turn against him in the general. Although they still covered him, because he was a ratings bonanza.

Trump is a showman (or carnival barker, if you prefer), and he well-understood that, in the race for POTUS, there is no such thing as bad publicity. As Oscar Wilde put it, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." And, if the supposedly "liberal" media had simply ignored him - rather than give him billions in free publicity - I think his campaign would have fizzled out during the primaries.

[Sarge]

Trump is a showman (or carnival barker, if you prefer), and he well-understood that, in the race for POTUS, there is no such thing as bad publicity. As Oscar Wilde put it, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." And, if the supposedly "liberal" media had simply ignored him - rather than give him billions in free publicity - I think his campaign would have fizzled out during the primaries.

I agree with a lot of this. I told many of my friends during the primaries that they were going about Trump the wrong way, and so were all the strategists. They opened up with guns blazing, when they just needed to starve him of attention. "Don't feed the troll," as it were.

I think part of why they were willing to feed him during the primaries is that they perceived him to be the weakest candidate in the GOP field. I'm... inclined to agree. That he still won either speaks volumes to our underestimating him, or to Sec. Clinton's relative weakness, or a combination of the two.

(Most of the media definitely tilts left, but sometimes, money can trump (har!) that.)

[prfsnl_gmr]

BTW, and on a completely unrelated subject, the haze in Charlotte today from the NC/TN forest fires is absolutely unbelievable. I hope that those of you living further west are OK.

[MrPopo]

BTW, and on a completely unrelated subject, the haze in Charlotte today from the NC/TN forest fires is absolutely unbelievable. I hope that those of you living further west are OK.

We're fine over here in Washington. So we know the smoke fizzles out somewhere between Charlotte and the west coast.