BTW, the one ad I remember seeing most of from Hillary was the one showing Trump on Letterman pimping his own products and being embarrassed when Letterman pointed out they were all made overseas.

Does "what if" not mean a hypothetical anymore?

Clinton didn't have huge margins in CO or NV. She spent a lot of effort towards the end in those places, and also trying to turn FL and NC. If she saves the rust belt, but then loses CO, NV, FL, and NC, she loses the election and people are criticizing her for wasting time in traditional Dem territory.

election post-mortem stuff moved into this thread

No, because he would've lost the EC by 150 votes. And it isn't all hindsight
That Mother Jones article is amusing. Does a well thought out explanation of how economic concerns mattered, and have actually been seeded by Democratic politicians... then the last few paragraphs throw in some random racism accusations, despite the only anecdote used showing that it wasn't really racism in that instance, the resentment was still economically based. It's like they tried so hard to actually get answers from people on the ground, but couldn't resist throwing in just a bit of the coastal elitist narrative their audience loves.

Good first step. But it will come to nothing.

A progressive magazine based out of San Francisco is out of touch with the Midwest?

Telling it like it is apparently is overrated. Well, depending on what side of the aisle you are on, of course. ;)

Because union workers being angry that Spanish speaking workers were coming in and doing jobs has absolutely nothing to do with racism at all...

I think they'd be just as angry if a bunch of Swedish people came in and took their jobs.

These were unions workers who were working on a plant... which jobs of theirs were those people taking?

Also interesting, the Midwest has by far the least foreign born workers than any other region of the US.

Came across this secondhand on FB, I can buy it, especially the resentment toward white-collar workers.

https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-so-many...-working-class

Come on now, we've reached 6000 posts on this election alone At best, I would characterize the entire election cycle as flaccid pontificating, at worst, erotic asphyxiation.

How about this for a stat: 17% of Trump voters approve of the job President Obama is doing.

Who likes President Obama and voted for Donald Trump? Lots of people. - The Washington Post

Well, to be honest, (as the article somewhat alludes to) this probably isn't that rare... after all some of George W. Bush's voters had to approve the job that President Clinton was doing in 2000 considering Clinton's approval rating at the time.

By the time we got into the recession, I thought W, with the Treasury and the Fed, was doing a pretty good job managing the crisis, so I could have answered yes to that question in 2008, for sure.

OK, y'all, there's um, a bit of a perceived difference in GWB supporters vs. BHO supporters and BHO supporters vs. DJT supporters. ;)

I'm talking about WJC supporters vs. GWB supporters. Plenty of GWB supporters said all sorts of shit about WJC.

I find it totally believable that 17% of DJT voters were garden variety republicans who based a decision on the Supreme Court or E-MAILS!!!@@@!!!!

Well so do I, but that doesn't exactly fit the ZOMFG TRUMP VOTERS WERE RACISTS!!!1 foolishness I've been seeing all too frequently. ;) (To be fair, there's been very little of that here, but among my millennial FB contacts in particular, good gracious. Let them tell it, every HRC voter is a lawless baby-murdered, and every DJT voter hates all blacks, Jews, gays, and women.)

So your argument is that only 83% of Trump supporters were racist? ;)

"No more than" :D

Which, to me, is *massively* different than using "all." #AccuracyMattersToPedants

It's possible to be racist and still think Obama did a good job.

Probably not in the binary minds of the people I'm talking about.

To further go into this, a political scientist decided to try to chart the 'competing narratives' of whites voting for Trump did so because of either economic concerns or racism & sexism. He found that they weren't actually competing at all:

White support for Donald Trump was driven by economic anxiety, but also by racism and sexism - Vox

Honestly, I can't help but get a chuckle out of the analysis. The bias was built right in, and displayed in the results. As used here "racism" and "sexism" are lovely liberal code words for what a great many of us see as simple acknowledgements of reality.

The divides in this country are very real, and no election is going to change that. No amount of attempted social engineering is going to change it either, well, not for the better anyway.

My favorite part was the "women seek to gain power by getting control over men" and how agreeing to it or being neutral was seen as sexist (at least that is how I read that context).

Which is silly, since, well, yeah, sure women do that. Use what talents God gave you. Do all women do that? No. Can all women do that? Also no. Do I think they're bad people for doing it? Depends on the context and how far they take it. That's not an easy question to answer on a simple 1-5 scale and if the analysis is ascribing to respondents the title of guaranteed sexists for their responses to that question, then that analysis is very flawed.

Rot in hell you misogynistic pig.

Sorry, just trying to save someone else the trouble.

And some folks get all bent out of shape when people say Trump voters were (to a large part... yes, probably not all) racist and sexist. I can't comprehend a person who can say those are 'simple acknowledgements of reality" and NOT be a racist/sexist. At least not in my view.

The real trick is that the concerns of rural voters can vary greatly from the concerns of urban. Gun control, for example. Urbanites might be generally happy to do away with all guns, while ranchers out west have a much larger need for them (and in some cases ones with more firepower). Just one example, there are others.

The electoral college makes sure each group at least has a voice that can't be totally ignored.

States that are "ignored" during the election cycle are ones that are generally strongly favoring one candidate over another, and no amount of campaigning will overcome that. Although they are truly ignored at your own peril as was discovered in this election.

Where the problem lies right now is in the primaries, where the early states end up winnowing the field too much, and candidates I like have withdrawn before I even get my chance. If a state is going to give the lion's share of it's primary reps to the candidate who gets the most votes, that candidate out to get 50%+1, not squeak by with just 30 - 40%. We need more runoffs the way most states allocate their delegates, maybe then we can avoid an election where a majority of voters hate BOTH major party candidates...

It was a plant being built wasn't it? So presumably it was non-union construction jobs.Depends how far you want to go with it. I hate actual neo-nazis & places like Stormfront, but when an actual example of jobs being taken (presumably) by immigrants is used as another example of racism uber alles that's where I question the tactic. I think there are a lot more white people who are willfully ignorant of racism than actually racist, and when they're all lumped together in the alt-right it's not only a mistake from an electoral perspective (because there are a lot more people who'll align with Breitbart than BLM, f.e.), but is also dangerous because it provides cover for the actual virulently racist threats.

Willful ignorance of racism (or the we don't care about racism if we get ours) is not as bad as being actively racist, but that doesn't mean it's all that excusable. It kind of reminds me of the harsh words that Dr. King had for the 'white moderate'.

And I can't comprehend how anyone assigns the word sexism in any remotely negative context to the response described, for the reasons CR pointed out.

Honestly, outside of here (presumably, I haven't paid that close attention tbh) I don't really see/know anyone getting bent at the various allegations of 'isms,given the frequency of absurd situations where they're haphazardly applied. The "deplorables" label was a mark of pride for many voters, because condemnation from the quarters that latched onto it is just about as high praise as you can get. We'd only worry if we were getting praised by the same people,THAT would be a cause for concern.

*shrug* and I see 'women seek to gain power by getting control over men' and immediately think "Holy crap, that's sexist AF!"

(interestingly enough, of the three, that was the easiest predictor of if you were going to vote for Trump - being neutral on the question had the same probability of voting for Trump than if you slightly disagreed that "white people have advantages in the US because of their skin color" and if you slightly satisfied with your overall economic situation - which was the second worst option on economics)

Thats an outstanding article imho. Spot on. Thanks for sharing.

If you don't think some, maybe even a very high percentage, of women take some advantage of their sexual control over men to advance their own interests, then I have to question your visualization of the reality around you.

The number of women whom I know who have done this number in the thousands. I could probably name a hundred right now that I know who are actively supporting themselves with their sexuality.

I think there are two problems with your view on it, IMO. One, I think you're viewing the statement as a black or white, 100% true/false statement and the reality is that the actual percentage of women doing this is somewhere in the middle. Two, you are sexualizing the question, attaching morality to it, along with the longstanding misogynistic views of society on promiscuity (i.e. women are sluts, men are studs). I view this statement with no morality attached. The use of sexuality for gain to me is a skill set only. The statement in the analysis does not ask if it is right for women to use sexuality for gain (a moral question). It simply asks if they do. That's a fact based statement, and you denying it makes you look abit naive.

FWIW, this is not a women only problem. Men also put their sexuality to use. But it is much less prevalent for men because women don't usually judge men on physical factors alone (or even at all), and men already have the balance of power so don't usually need to go seek it from the other sex.

Instead of #Calexit, which is dumb, I propose that California split up into states equal to the population of Wyoming, which is the lowest populated state. You could split California up into 66 states doing this. Each state would get 3 electoral votes (not to mention 2 Senators and a Rep).

Instead of 55 Electoral votes, 2 Senators and 53 Representatives, California now has 198 electoral votes, 112 Senators, and 66 Representatives.

This is just as bad as trying to support right wing talking points by citing Fox. Vox is utter garbage. The implicit bias in the survey structure would have gotten me laughed out of my intro to research methodology class.

He is engaging in confirmation bias, as most of us do. I fell for this bias during the election when I would only look at information supporting why I didn't think Trump could win the battleground states. Others are using this bias to justify why their candidate lost, and pulling information from biased sources is the most common way of doing that.

I tried to follow the EC vote inside this thread but got complete lost in the argument. Interesting enough I had a EC conversion with friends and my children both republican and democrat and as far is voting was concern both sides felt screwed. Maryland is a democratic state so my democrat friends felt there vote didn't matter because there were more than enough democrats to allow Hillary to earn the EC vote. And my republican friends said they feel there vote didn't matter because there just weren't enough of them to push trump over the edge in Maryland to earn the EC votes. As a result, they didn't vote !!!! As far as the EC, I just not understanding how other think its a far system. I understand its intention but you have to question the fact Clinton won popular vote but lost EC by a very large margin. I believe its happened 4 times in history all of which are in favor of the republicans.

I think it comes down to your personal view of our country. Do you see the USA as 1 large unified entity, or do you view it as a collection of 50 individual STATES that have a sort of group construct to allow some sharing of resources.

I'm trying to make the point without evoking the charged "states rights" words but to me....yeah I think numerous items currently handled at a federal level should be handled at a state level, and if that strict conformity of the Constitution were carried out "appropriately" then it becomes a very real necessity.

Population is a component, for sure. But a candidate could dominate what 7(?) cities with a 75% majority and win the popular vote.

And Im not talking about campaign pandering, Im talking actual governing practice. If a President knows he doesnt have to worry about the opinion of rural ranchers ( in the previous thread example) he can/will literally disregard their entire needs in his decision making.

That's a great synthesis.

So I keep hearing this, yet no one has responded to the point I've made several times. In Georgia, the rural voters outnumber the urban voters and have complete control of the state. Should we develop some system in Georgia to make sure the urban voters are equally heard or do we only do that when rural voters are at a disadvantage?

Unless there's a large number of unregistered urban dwellers, that's not true. Georgia's rural population is 46.5% of the total.

I'm not 100% sure I understand your question.
My first initial response is state government does not equal federal government. Assuming you are suggesting that you want GA to develop an electoral college for electing their state reps. If they chose to run their government that way, then yes they should do that.

If your question is instead about how GAs POTUS EC votes are assigned, Im even more confused by your question

Speaking of confirmation bias, the author of the article, Brian Schaffner, is not a writer for Vox.com. He's not even a writer for 'The Mischiefs of Faction', which was the political science blog bought by Vox, under which umbrella this post appears. This is Schaffner's first article ever to be put on Vox. Who is Schaffner? Well, you could have read the attribution section...


So, I think he would have done quite well in your intro to methodology class. I hope you put a bit more effort in researching your sources than you did in this post.

I read that section, and actually sent a message to Vox about it due to the obvious flaws in the structure.

1. He pulled "an item" out of two batteries of questions. One of the ways to avoid bias in survey polling is having enough non-leading questions to counter imposing your own agenda. He did the exact opposite.

2. If you ask a loaded question like he did about women using their sexuality to get ahead in the workplace, you absolutely have to have a follow up to that which asks those who answered yes if they view that as a good or bad thing.

Even good researchers do bad research sometimes, and this was garbage.

It's the United States of America. All 50 States have some weight in this Republic. It's not called the United Peoples of Los Angeles and New York after all.

30 States voted for Trump. It's the job of the candidates to convince more states to vote for them. Just running around Los Angeles and New York and spouting off about how racist and sexist white people are doesn't sound very impressive of a change.

Small wrinkle with your plan ... Congress has to approve it. Repeatedly.

Congress also has the option to deny admission to any new 'state" formed out of part of an existing state. That requires the agreement of three parties: the existing state, the new state, AND Congress.