POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[wustin]

He tried to unify the democratic base by telling them to go vote Hillary. They either gave up on him for selling out or they really hated Hillary.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by wustin

He tried to unify the democratic base by telling them to go vote Hillary. They either gave up on him for selling out or they really hated Hillary.

I don't think that's quite right. For instance, there were 1.2 million voters in the Dem MI primary. Hillary got 2.2 million on election night.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

But first tackle the demand [for drugs in the US] then the supply. But unfortunately, the US seems to be going in the opposite direction.

How do you do this?

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Originally Posted by Galaxy
I think Bernie would have drove out the voters that didn't vote, who tended to be younger, and quite frankly, the Bernie supporters that are pretty pissed off at the DNC and hate Hillary.

No kidding.

excerpt
Quote:
Feeding off the Clinton machine, the Democratic Party has become riddled with lobbyists, billionaires, and hustlers who pocket huge sums of money by running either nonprofit "think tanks" or election-cycle networks, and politicians who, indeed, are focused mostly on reelection. Surrounding the party are extremely well-paid non-profit leaders, who end up defending the status quo.

I would even add there are quite a few Bernie supporters I've read that are smirking a bit at the failure of Hillary and the Democratic party.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think that whole, Bernie would motivate more Dems to show up is more hopeful than real. The guy did end up losing the primary by quite a bit and, no, it wasn't because it was 'rigged'. He couldn't motivate Dems to come out to beat Clinton. The youth showed up to rallies, but not the voting booth.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

I can't imagine that democrats would have come out and voted for Bernie, especially against Trump. The base would have fallen in line. Didn't Bernie do far better with African-Americans than Hillary? Bernie also had a message that appealed to the white working class, which could have helped act a firewall against Trump's move into that demographic.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Didn't Bernie do far better with African-Americans than Hillary?

Clinton destroyed Sanders with African-Americans (76% to 23%), it's why she won the nomination. The margins in a some of the southern states were ridiculous - that created the lead that Sanders could never come back from. That's the only reason I think Sanders might have also lost against Trump. His base doesn't vote much (though they like to protest AFTER the election), and he completely failed to connect with black voters. It's possible that Sanders could have done better in the upper midwest though, he beat Clinton in Michigan and Wisconsin.

How Hillary Clinton Won the Democratic Nomination Over Bernie Sanders - WSJ.com

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Didn't Bernie do far better with African-Americans than Hillary?

Heavens no, you've got that backwards.

His inability to attract black voters in the primary is a huge part of what got him beat.

In Virginia, exit polls showed that Clinton won 84% of the black vote to Sanders’ 16%. In Arkansas, she beat him 91% to 9% among black voters. In Alabama, the margin was 91% to 6%. .... In Southern states that voted on Super Tuesday, even black voters ages 18 to 29—a slice of the electorate that Sanders’ team believed they had a shot at—voted for Clinton 61% to 36%. ... In Pennsylvania, Sanders almost tied Clinton with white voters but was trounced among black voters. In New York, they tied among white voters; Clinton won black voters 75% to 25%.

How Bernie Sanders lost the black vote | Fusion

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And evil incarnate on top of it.

The thing is, Jon, when this is how you describe everybody to the left of you - and it is - it's either a massive, massive case of projection, or words have no meaning to you.

So which is it - do you just like to hear your gums flap, or shall I start calling you Your Infernal Majesty?

[RainMaker]

Hyperbole just causes the words people use to lose all meaning.

[larrymcg421]

Clinton actually won Cobb County, GA. It's a metro-Atlanta county and the center of Newt Gingrich's old political base. A Democrat hadn't won this county since 1976. Yes, Carter didn't even win it in his own re-election bid. Bill Clinton lost it by 20 both times. Gore and Kerry lost it by more than 23 points. Obama narrowed the gap, losing by 9 to McCain and 13 to Romney. Yet, Hillary ended up swinging it by 15 pts for a 2 pt win.

By the way, this is the type of place where Bernie would've done much worse than Hillary. And while GA wouldn't have mattered, I think it would be true of suburbs in those rust belt states. My guess is Bernie would've gotten typical Democratic (maybe Obama 08) numbers with the white working class, but would've gotten hammered in the suburban areas, where people would've been bombarded with scary stories of his socialist tax plans.

[Galaxy]

Clinton aides blame loss on everything but themselves - POLITICO

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Heavens no, you've got that backwards.

His inability to attract black voters in the primary is a huge part of what got him beat.


How Bernie Sanders lost the black vote | Fusion

Thank you and Molson for the information. It's quite interesting then that the African-American vote was down about a 1 million in this election cycle. If Clinton crushed Sanders in that demographic, then what would have rallied them to polls?

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Clinton aides blame loss on everything but themselves - POLITICO

I hesitate to put this here but we have a family member coming to stay with us this weekend who knows the Clinton's really well and is still on the periphery of the political scene - I'm absolutely fascinated to get her take on this mess. Seems like anyone off the street with a passing interest in politics could probably have won this election for the Dems, just an awfully run campaign from top to bottom.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I hesitate to put this here but we have a family member coming to stay with us this weekend who knows the Clinton's really well and is still on the periphery of the political scene - I'm absolutely fascinated to get her take on this mess. Seems like anyone off the street with a passing interest in politics could probably have won this election for the Dems, just an awfully run campaign from top to bottom.

She's just an unlikable candidate with equally-damaging baggage against is a master of branding himself and opponents (good and bad). The fact that she hired DWS right after she stepped down as DNC after the WikiLeaks dump didn't help optics-wise. I also think when Clinton made the deplorables comment, that was her "47%" moment was really the start of the end of her chances.

I'm not a fan of Robert Reich, but I thought his piece was good as well.
Robert Reich: What Donald Trump's Election Really Means | Alternet

[MrBug708]

This isn't really something serious, but I got a good laugh out of the thread. It's from the Crystal Palace forum, on who would make a better Palace Manager, Hilary or Trump

https://www.holmesdale.net/page.php?...=163461&page=1

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I found an article that did a few states, but not all 50.
fwiw
UPDATED: Obama 2012 Would've Beaten Trump 2016 | National Review

Full spreadsheet. Interesting as the California count continues to come in, it looks like the total votes cast will exceed 2012. Turnout will still be down as a percentage because of increased numbers of eligible voters.

2016 National Popular Vote Tracker

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Thank you and Molson for the information. It's quite interesting then that the African-American vote was down about a 1 million in this election cycle. If Clinton crushed Sanders in that demographic, then what would have rallied them to polls?

Michelle, maybe. Possibly Beyonce.

Other than that, or a promise of large cash "reparations", most likely nothing IMO.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

And the Republicans label everyone a socialist. The point was it wouldn't have mattered if they attacked Bernie for being a socialist because he was offering something different and that's what people wanted in this election.

That's where you're wrong. There's a lot of people who voted for Trump that would have voted for Bernie if he was the other option. No way that Trump wins against him.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Good post by Mike Rowe on the election results:

https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMike...853343591472:0

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Ouch. Didn't see this posted yet.

[Dutch]

Stephen A Smith definitely has that "Love him or hate him" mentality on lock down. Nobody in sports commentary can baffle me with his words on one day and make me cheer the next quite like Stephen can.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Stephen A Smith definitely has that "Love him or hate him" mentality on lock down. Nobody in sports commentary can baffle me with his words on one day and make me cheer the next quite like Stephen can.

I think it's also one of the most sincere commentaries I've ever seen from him as well. Sometimes, it seems like he's just trying to get a rise out of people. It's pretty obvious in this instance that he's legitimately pissed that he didn't go vote.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Nobody in sports commentary can baffle me with his words on one day and make me cheer the next quite like Stephen can.

I think the cheering moments are probably under the "stopped clock rule" but yeah, he probably does as wide a range of reactions from me as any personality I can think of.

To the point that I occasionally wonder if he does it intentionally, whether it's all real or if he tries to bewilder/shock/surprise.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Stephen A Smith definitely has that "Love him or hate him" mentality on lock down. Nobody in sports commentary can baffle me with his words on one day and make me cheer the next quite like Stephen can.

I ignore ESPN these days, but whenever I hear him say stuff when it makes news, I tend to either love or hate it.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I'm not a fan of Robert Reich, but I thought his piece was good as well.
Robert Reich: What Donald Trump's Election Really Means | Alternet

Yes, that is an excellent read. A more intelligent and better written piece than the ones from that shrill Sanders opinionist that I posted earlier, but both were saying the same thing.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

To the point that I occasionally wonder if he does it intentionally, whether it's all real or if he tries to bewilder/shock/surprise.

Dan Lebatard recounted something on his radio show today that I think answers your question. When Skip Bayless was still at ESPN he went to a family function where his 9-year-old nephew was disappointed that Skip was there but "the muppet" wasn't. SAS is so over the top that he's playing a character that even children don't think is real.

[wustin]

Wait Kaepernick didn't vote? Doesn't he know he can write in someone?

Edit: You're also voting for your local politicians too...

[molson]

Originally Posted by wustin

Wait Kaepernick didn't vote? Doesn't he know he can write in someone?

Edit: You're also voting for your local politicians too...

I posted all the things that were on his ballot a few pages ago, but ya, he skipped a chance to weigh in on some state ballot initiatives involving increased school funding, widening the scope of parole for nonviolent offenders, legalizing marijuana, all things that speak to the causes he proclaims to have, all things that can help keep law enforcement in check in various ways, and all things that can strengthen a community and reduce prison populations. Not only did he not vote, he said he didn't even pay attention to how this stuff came out.

Edit: Not only is he indifferent, he also shit on the people who supported him and do care about this stuff.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by wustin

Wait Kaepernick didn't vote? Doesn't he know he can write in someone?

Edit: You're also voting for your local politicians too...

There were also criminal justice items on the ballot. I defended Kaepernick before, but fuck him.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I think the cheering moments are probably under the "stopped clock rule" but yeah, he probably does as wide a range of reactions from me as any personality I can think of.

To the point that I occasionally wonder if he does it intentionally, whether it's all real or if he tries to bewilder/shock/surprise.

I fall solidly in line with this opinion, I have alternately loved him and wished he would STFU and vanish, and while I think he exaggerates his level of indignity at times, I also tend to think he shoots from the heart and allows whatever emotion he is feeling to flow for the most part.

He is definitely in the 'shock jock' category, but overall I like him and sometimes even find him refreshing.

[wustin]

Apparently Jay Cutler voted for Trump LOL

[ISiddiqui]

An interesting NY Times article on how Bill Clinton desperately wanted to do more campaigning among white working class voters, but the campaign folk (mostly the campaign manager) said that data was pushing them to suburban voters:

Log In - New York Times

Another interesting article is that when all is said and done, Clinton will likely have a substantial popular vote advantage (2 mil votes and 1.5 in %) and what does that mean for the future (even though that won't mean anything this year)

Log In - New York Times

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

An interesting NY Times article on how Bill Clinton desperately wanted to do more campaigning among white working class voters, but the campaign folk (mostly the campaign manager) said that data was pushing them to suburban voters:

Log In - New York Times

Here's a Politico article with similar items mentioned.

Here's Robert Reich echoing those sentiments, and going hard on the DNC and RNC for trying to push pre-ordained candidates down people's throats.

Additionally, the Harvard Business Review and Mike Rowe each do a great job of distinguishing between the working class and the poor.

[ISiddiqui]

I think the interesting thing in the Times article (and further down in Politico article) was how much Bill Clinton was really really pushing this. Even doing events on his own in the Upper Midwest. And how following the data screwed the campaign.

Edit: I see the Politico article talks about that further down the article.

[Arles]

Seth MacFarlane had an interesting take:

Just a thought as my brain attempts to process HOW. pic.twitter.com/YlJA1Z5qOQ

— Seth MacFarlane (@SethMacFarlane) November 9, 2016

Basically, the left had spent the last 10 years telling us how every conservative was a racist if they wanted to protect the border or weren't all in on BLM, a bigot if they weren't in favor of transgender bathrooms and a misogynist if they weren't pro-choice. So, when the real "wolf" showed up in Trump who actually demonstrated these characteristics, the public had grown tired of the tactic and some felt "Yeah, but that's what you say about all republicans". I'm not sure if it's accurate as I don't know what exactly middle America was thinking, but it is an interesting take.

[cuervo72]

Posting the pic one time probably would have sufficed there, Arlie.

[Arles]

Sorry, was hard to see on my phone. Thanks for the heads up and I just edited

[Galaxy]

U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell says Democrats missed signs of discontent in Michigan | MLive.com

House Democrat Debbie Dingell of Michigan says she saw the Trump wave coming and tried to warn the party.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Arles

Seth MacFarlane had an interesting take:

Just a thought as my brain attempts to process HOW. pic.twitter.com/YlJA1Z5qOQ

— Seth MacFarlane (@SethMacFarlane) November 9, 2016

Basically, the left had spent the last 10 years telling us how every conservative was a racist if they wanted to protect the border or weren't all in on BLM, a bigot if they weren't in favor of transgender bathrooms and a misogynist if they weren't pro-choice. So, when the real "wolf" showed up in Trump who actually demonstrated these characteristics, the public had grown tired of the tactic and some felt "Yeah, but that's what you say about all republicans". I'm not sure if it's accurate as I don't know what exactly middle America was thinking, but it is an interesting take.

But Seth MacFarland engaged i these actions himself right along side with Hollywood. Michael Moore is only leftist Hollywood guy who saw it and stay in-touch with what was happening outside of their Hollywood, coastal bubble. Why do you think a lot of Americans have a distant for the media and Hollywood? They live in their worlds and try to tell the rest of the country, and frankly, the world, what to do. You can't even have an argument/debate with liberals without being called something or having a "Do As I say, I know what's best for you" attitude. If you're going to preach tolerance and open minded, practice it. Doesn't excuse Trump, and it doesn't excuse everyone else.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

But Seth MacFarland engaged i these actions himself right along side with Hollywood. Michael Moore is only leftist Hollywood guy who saw it and stay in-touch with what was happening outside of their Hollywood, coastal bubble. Why do you think a lot of Americans have a distant for the media and Hollywood? They live in their worlds and try to tell the rest of the country, and frankly, the world, what to do. You can't even have an argument/debate with liberals without being called something or having a "Do As I say, I know what's best for you" attitude. If you're going to preach tolerance and open minded, practice it. Doesn't excuse Trump, and it doesn't excuse everyone else.

When did Seth MacFarlane engage in these attitudes? The fact that he's still involved in Family Guy seems to indicate the opposite.

[larrymcg421]

I love that Michael Moore is now everything that's right with the Democratic Party and we were dumb for not listening to him when before this election, he was bandied about as everything that's wrong with the Democratic Party.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I love that Michael Moore is now everything that's right with the Democratic Party and we were dumb for not listening to him when before this election, he was bandied about as everything that's wrong with the Democratic Party.

Crazy. Does he still live in Michigan? He does seem like the person who gets out of his bubble and in middle and lower class America.

[QuikSand]

All this talk about "oh, we saw the giant wave coming" is starting to get tiresome.

We get it. Some white people were more motivated than usual. That seems to have ended up carrying the day.

But it's not like the country came out 80-20 for Trump. We went into Tuesday thinking that Clinton would win with something like 3% more votes than Trump, and in the end it's going to be she won something like 1% more votes. Factor in all the people who just didn't bother to vote, and you have to get to something like 200 eligible voters before the count of Clinton voters and Trump voters is separated by a full person. This wasn't a tidal wave. It was a subtle creep.

Right...Michael Moore (or whomever) correctly detected the anger or whatever that drove Trump voters. But let's not pretend he saw that level of insight. Trump won some states by a percent or two that we thought he'd lose by a percent or two. Skinheads didn't take over. This wasn't a massive system shock.

The difference in what happened and what everyone thought was about to happen was basically imperceptible at any casual talk-on-the-street level.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

Basically, the left had spent the last 10 years telling us how every conservative was a racist if they wanted to protect the border or weren't all in on BLM, a bigot if they weren't in favor of transgender bathrooms and a misogynist if they weren't pro-choice. So, when the real "wolf" showed up in Trump who actually demonstrated these characteristics, the public had grown tired of the tactic and some felt "Yeah, but that's what you say about all republicans". I'm not sure if it's accurate as I don't know what exactly middle America was thinking, but it is an interesting take.

Not every conservative. They were calling moderates and liberals racist for not agreeing with them on everything too.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

We get it. Some white people were more motivated than usual. That seems to have ended up carrying the day.

It's not just the white folk though (who had a lower turnout than in 2012). Trump also got more percentage of black and latino votes than Romney did. Younger voters also seemed more likely to turn to a 3rd party as well.

[RainMaker]

White people voted for Trump at the same level they voted for Romney. I think the narrative comes from the left that just wants to blame everything on white people.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

vTrump also got more percentage of black and latino votes than Romney did.

An under discussed phenomenon.

[cuervo72]

Bigger raw numbers or just greater percent given lower turnout? (Yeah, I was too lazy to open the link a page or so back.)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

All this talk about "oh, we saw the giant wave coming" is starting to get tiresome.

We get it. Some white people were more motivated than usual. That seems to have ended up carrying the day.

But it's not like the country came out 80-20 for Trump. We went into Tuesday thinking that Clinton would win with something like 3% more votes than Trump, and in the end it's going to be she won something like 1% more votes. Factor in all the people who just didn't bother to vote, and you have to get to something like 200 eligible voters before the count of Clinton voters and Trump voters is separated by a full person. This wasn't a tidal wave. It was a subtle creep.

Right...Michael Moore (or whomever) correctly detected the anger or whatever that drove Trump voters. But let's not pretend he saw that level of insight. Trump won some states by a percent or two that we thought he'd lose by a percent or two. Skinheads didn't take over. This wasn't a massive system shock.

The difference in what happened and what everyone thought was about to happen was basically imperceptible at any casual talk-on-the-street level.

100% agreed. Let's not act like Trump won by like 10% in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania here. Subtle creep from the polls is right. I'm scared that the Dems are going to buy into the narrative and go full on "we need to go completely after the white working class to the detriment of all else" rather than realizing how close it was.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

100% agreed. Let's not act like Trump won by like 10% in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania here. Subtle creep from the polls is right. I'm scared that the Dems are going to buy into the narrative and go full on "we need to go completely after the white working class to the detriment of all else" rather than realizing how close it was.

You sure are scared a lot.

[RainMaker]

Working class voters is supposed to be the Democrat's base. Why wouldn't you go hard after them? Catering to some coastal elites like they have been isn't going to win you an electoral victory.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

White people voted for Trump at the same level they voted for Romney. I think the narrative comes from the left that just wants to blame everything on white people.

Calling bullshit on this. I've heard this narrative from Republicans as much as Democrats.

Clinton's 37% is the lowest showing among the white vote for any candidate since Mondale in 1984. And while Trump did slightly better percentage-wise among Hispanics, Hispanic turnout was up, so Clinton actually built up an increased vote margin among that group.

Nate Silver explains it well:

States where Clinton will probably beat Obama's popular vote margin:
Arizona
California
D.C.
Georgia
Kansas
Mass.
Texas
Utah
Washington

States with double-digit shift to Trump vs Romney 2012:
Iowa
Maine
Michigan
North Dakota
Ohio
Rhode Island
South Dakota
West Virginia

The obvious commonality is the white working class. The claim from exit polls that Trump's gains v Romney came among minorities is dubious.