|
chumbler posted:She had higher turnout than every recent candidate not named Obama, including Trump. Could I see some numbers on this please, I can't seem to find anything comparing this year to past elections.
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:05 |
|
|
Sharkopath posted:As a bit of reach out to you Rexicon, the mindset this dude is displaying is the reason why minority posters are becomig increasingly tired and angry and willing to see failings that haven't quite manifested yet. As a fellow minority poster, I am willing to listen to your reasoning. e: Sorry I misunderstood your reason for posting what you did. I thought you were discussing my reply to Guy. I can see where the exasperation comes from. That said, we all might need to take a deep breath. Rexicon1 fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:Could I see some numbers on this please, I can't seem to find anything comparing this year to past elections. Think Trump is #6 (so last one) in total votes for the last three elections
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:Could I see some numbers on this please, I can't seem to find anything comparing this year to past elections. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/11/did_clinton_fail_to_turn_out_registered_democrats.html Couple links in the second to last paragraph.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Sharkopath posted:This right here yeah, you should be able to see why framing your point this way is going to stoke feelings of preemptive abandonment. I don't understand what you mean. If the Democrats focus on race as the reason they lost this election, then we won't actually learn anything or be able to run a better campaign next time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:I don't understand what you mean. If the Democrats focus on race as the reason they lost this election, then we won't actually learn anything or be able to run a better campaign next time. But pretending that race had nothing to do with it just tells minorities that they don't matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The problem is that the issues of racial minorities are in many cases more important. Hundreds of unarmed black men have been outright murdered by police officers this year, most of whom went entirely unpunished. If the Democratic Party signals that black people's concerns about that aren't as important as white people's misgivings about the economy, it's going to be hard for them to work up the will to jump through all the barriers to voting the Republicans are going to erect over the next few years. Minorities aren't as worked up about the economy as white people are right now, and shifting focus and messaging in the economic direction threatens to draw attention away from police brutality, Islamophobia, and other issues that the Dems already tend to seem uncomfortable taking head on. This is the kind of poo poo that reminds everyone how much putting the effort into voting actually matters. Republicans won and will be locking every door, pulling up every ladder, and burning every bridge to make sure poor people, brown people, black people and women don't vote. They guard all the gates and carry all the keys outside a tiny handful of areas. If you think 2020 or even 2018 is going to be even half as "easy" as this election was then consider how fast North Carolina went after they slept on voting and let McCrory into office. Consider how fast Wisconsin went after they slept on voting and let Scott Walker into office. Maine, LePage. Pennsylvania, Corbett. It isn't enough to have the right kind of outreach next time around, because the areas where even Hillary was strong aren't even going to be able to vote in anywhere nearly strong enough numbers. Sometimes you elect a person, other times you elect a party. Now everyone gets to see what kind of party got voted into office. I hope mcdonald's starts serving hard liquor from drive thru windows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:I don't understand what you mean. If the Democrats focus on race as the reason they lost this election, then we won't actually learn anything or be able to run a better campaign next time. I'm curious what you mean by "focus on race". I don't agree with what you are saying, but I want to understand where you are coming from so maybe we can have a discussion about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:She had higher turnout than every recent candidate, as long as we don't count the winner of the past two elections. And since the American electorate has remained the exact same size throughout all the recent elections, from that we can determine, uhh... Do you think the size kf the American electorate grew by 10% between 2000 and 2008? Or was there maybe something else at work? Like, say, a tremendously unpopular war and the biggest recession since the Great Depression? Nah, couldn't be! Hey guys, let's run another Carter - he beat Nixon, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
chumbler posted:http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/11/did_clinton_fail_to_turn_out_registered_democrats.html Didn't need to go any further than the headline to know it was meaningless. Sheer quantity of votes is meaningless in a continually growing country. There are more latinos and blacks (and whites and every other group) in this country than there ever has been in the past. It will be true again in 2020, and 2024, and 2028, and......
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:Didn't need to go any further than the headline to know it was meaningless. Sheer quantity of votes is meaningless in a continually growing country. There are more latinos and blacks (and whites and every other group) in this country than there ever has been in the past. It will be true again in 2020, and 2024, and 2028, and...... And it will be harder for them to vote than ever before. oh goddamnit some rear end in a top hat is going to bring up jim crow isn'the
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:But pretending that race had nothing to do with it just tells minorities that they don't matter. Stop it. Stop. Stop it. loving Stop. Guy Goodbody posted:If the Democrats focus on race as the reason they lost this election, then we won't actually learn anything or be able to run a better campaign next time. Who What Now posted:But pretending that race had nothing to do with it just tells minorities that they don't matter. These are not the same thing. His statement is one of nuance and your response is one of absolute. You've been peddling this same poo poo for the last few days - utterly seeing right past anything that anyone else has said and taking their words of nuance to a black and white extreme. Stating that "a focus on racism is wrong" and "pretending racism doesn't exist" are not in any way the same thing. Boon fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:I don't understand what you mean. If the Democrats focus on race as the reason they lost this election, then we won't actually learn anything or be able to run a better campaign next time. Racism tied to economic frustration is the real issue because the two are so intrinsically linked in our society and the modern rhetoric bandied about has enshrined them even closer together to the point I am no longer sure you will actually energize a new base away from trumps camp without also isolating various miborities you would have previously gotten support from. The best shot in my mind is to focus on both.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:But pretending that race had nothing to do with it just tells minorities that they don't matter. Not to mention it hurts the Democratic Party and the interests of minorities in the long run because we move forward with incomplete information.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Boon posted:Stop it. Stop. Stop it. loving Stop. Because literally every single minority poster has been saying the exact same thing, and because historically that's exactly what happens whenever a party decides "not to focus on race". So gently caress you, I absolutely will not stop it and you can go gently caress yourself if you don't like it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
If you don't want to understand what motivates an aggregate then you don't deserve to win and neither do we. Not understanding the why of something is the surest way to lose any ability to influence it.
Boon fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:I'm curious what you mean by "focus on race". I don't agree with what you are saying, but I want to understand where you are coming from so maybe we can have a discussion about it. I mean this JeffersonClay posted:Clinton won on the economy and won big on foreign policy--her strongest area. Trump won big on immigration and terrorism. How did Trump do so well on immigration and terrorism? Whipping up fear of brown people. That's what caused a surge of turnout among white voters without a college degree, and that's what caused Trump to win. is wrong. Of course racism was a factor. But racism doesn't explain why Clinton got fewer votes than Obama. Racism doesn't explain why Clinton got a smaller percentage of Latino votes than Obama. Racism doesn't explain why Clinton got a smaller percentage of black votes than Obama. If racism is the reason Clinton lost, then there's nothing to learn. Racism is bad, the Democrats shouldn't become racist to try to win Trump votes. So the only solution is to just sit and wait patiently until Latinos outnumber whites aka the Democrat's Eternal Plan B
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
There's literally no reason not to focus on race, as long as you also convincingly present an economic platform that appeals to working-class people. Hillary didn't lose because she tried to address the concerns of minorities, she lost because she was an uninspiring candidate whose campaign became complacent and thought that they'd win by default.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:If racism is the reason Clinton lost, then there's nothing to learn. Racism is bad, the Democrats shouldn't become racist to try to win Trump votes. So the only solution is to just sit and wait patiently until Latinos outnumber whites aka the Democrat's Eternal Plan B Agreed, though I'd take that step further and explicitly state the implicit point that "Racism" (TM) and people are not zero-sum games. People can be racist and still vote the way you want them too because there are other factors that motivate people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:There's literally no reason not to focus on race, as long as you also convincingly present an economic platform that appeals to working-class people. Hillary didn't lose because she tried to address the concerns of minorities, she lost because she was an uninspiring candidate whose campaign became complacent and thought that they'd win by default. This is meaningless. Seriously, explain what that means in practice when posters here refuse to understand 'working-class people'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:Could I see some numbers on this please, I can't seem to find anything comparing this year to past elections. Gore got about 51 million votes (I'm rounding for simplicity) in 2000, while Bush got about 500k fewer votes than him. Kerry got around 60 million votes and lost to Bush, who got 62 million votes in 2004. Obama got nearly 70 million votes and trounced the hell out of McCain, who came in just short of 60 million. In 2012, Obama's count dropped to just 66 million, but he still handily beat Romney's 61 million. In 2016, it looks like Trump came in at a bit over 60 million votes, while Hillary came close to 61 million votes. Missing in these numbers, naturally, is any sort of goddamn logic. Kerry topped Gore by 10 million votes, while Obama topped Kerry by another 10 million votes. Bush got 12 million more votes in his second campaign than in his first, while Obama got 4 million fewer votes in his second election. The swings are way too drastic to be explained by electorate growth alone; I suspect the overall political condition of the nation has a way bigger impact on general turnout than the candidates themselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Everyone keeps saying that the race was lost because people didn't come out to vote, but that's just not true. The percentage of people who could vote didn't vote, but we had more voters this year than in 2016 by like a few million. Yes, people that could have turned out to vote didn't but the idea that a small number of people voted in the election isn't actually a true statement. The number of people who could vote didn't vote this election. It's pedantic but true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Boon posted:This is meaningless. For example, you could go to the rust belt and tell the people there that you'll stop any future free trade agreements and also that you'll bring the jobs back. Pull a Bernie, if you will. Problem is, you can't do that if you're not seen as authentic, which is why the Democrats need to stop fielding candidats that are percieved to be in the pocket of Wall Street.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Gore got about 51 million votes (I'm rounding for simplicity) in 2000, while Bush got about 500k fewer votes than him. Kerry got around 60 million votes and lost to Bush, who got 62 million votes in 2004. Obama got nearly 70 million votes and trounced the hell out of McCain, who came in just short of 60 million. In 2012, Obama's count dropped to just 66 million, but he still handily beat Romney's 61 million. In 2016, it looks like Trump came in at a bit over 60 million votes, while Hillary came close to 61 million votes. She got a lower percent of eligible voters, higher raw numbers. Don't be disengenuous. Unless we're deciding that raw numbers is now more meaningful than percentage of eligible voters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
The vote count totals are dumb without context of population changes. The gross population of the US between 2000 and 2016 also grew by 40 million people and eligible voters between 2012 and 2016 has grown by 10 million.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:There's literally no reason not to focus on race, as long as you also convincingly present an economic platform that appeals to working-class people. Hillary didn't lose because she tried to address the concerns of minorities, she lost because she was an uninspiring candidate whose campaign became complacent and thought that they'd win by default. Exactly. People keep acting like this race was somehow unprecendented, or the only presidential race ever, but we need to look at trends. Bill Clinton: charismatic, won Al Gore: boring, lost John Kerry: boring, lost Obama: charismatic, won Hillary Clinton: boring, lost Democrats win when we run exciting, charismatic candidates who can connect to the people, and lose when we run boring technocrats Let's look at Clinton's presidential history 2008: lost to a candidate perceived as an outsider who would shake things up 2016: lost to a candidate perceived as an outsider who would shake things up Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate. If your 2016 election post-mortem starts with racism instead of that, you've hosed up
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
It's almost as if you focused more on the disease (income inequality across the board, among all races) and less on the symptoms (violence, drug abuse, education, poverty, healthcare, etc.) you might actually cure society's ills rather than alienating people who feel like you're ignoring their problems in favor of someone else's.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Who cares? There are much bigger reasons. Stop focusing on the reason you like because it makes you feel morally superior. I would dispute that reasons are "much" bigger (depending on how much much is), but in general noone is doing this. People are arguing in circles because on one hand people are assuming that someone's claimed "racism is the only reason" and on another some strawman that (real or perceived) economic anxiety is the only reason. Those are both reasons, they're both "big" reasons and there are probably a lot of others. Also stop being reductive and gently caress off with the ad hominem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:I mean this I see, well as a response to the guy you quoted: He's wrong on one major point: Clinton didn't win. She lost, and it doesn't matter what she "won" on. Hilary won with Women? great, but she didn't win enough. Hilary won on economy? Great but it doesn't matter. She lost. Now we get to look at why she didn't win enough on economic/gender/race/inequality issues. To you, I'd remind you that this is a vastly complicated thing. Yes, we need to focus on certain aspects of the political sphere, racism is one that needs to be focused on, even just so that people like me and other minorities get what we want out of the deal. We will absolutely not come and support if you do not make it a major point of these movements.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
speng31b posted:She got a lower percent of eligible voters, higher raw numbers. Don't be disengenuous. What's the difference? The size of the electorate doesn't change that much in four years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
So, if we accept the premise that people just don't trust HRC on helping the working class, I'm not sure why all the white progressives in this thread are so confused and indignant why minority posters keep expressing skepticism at all the 'class war is the most important' or even, the more mild 'we need to focus on both' statements. Minorities don't trust white progressives -- because they historically sell minority voters up the river, we've just had an election where it just happened again in pretty stark terms, and there are at least several posts in this thread and media reactions advocating dropping focus on minority issues - hiding it like minorities should wait their turn again, quietly, at the back - because either economy is more important or because it discomforts white rural voters. Congratulations. You're essentially running into the same problem that HRC apparently did. Whatever good intentions you have, you're not viewed as authentic and you're not trusted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
 I just want everyone to see this picture. That said, who is the next charismatic outsider? This is something we should be thinking about right drat now and not waiting for that charismatic outsider to show up and give a loving incredible speech at the DNC in 2020. Obama is not someone who just shows up every couple weeks waiting to lend a loving hand. Right god drat now, who are we supposed to believe can lead this shambling husk of a party into the next four years?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:It's almost as if you focused more on the disease (income inequality across the board, among all races) and less on the symptoms (violence, drug abuse, education, poverty, healthcare, etc.) you might actually cure society's ills rather than alienating people who feel like you're ignoring their problems in favor of someone else's. Except the Democratic policy does focus on income inequality by seeking to improve welfare of all sorts, raise minimum wages, support labor and all that. The problem is actually trying to fix that alienates large swathes of middle income people who are mad that other people would reach about the same outcomes as they did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Since we're talking about turnout, here are a couple links that show raw data going back to 1980. http://www.electproject.org/2016g http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-data The first link is the 2016 election alone. Assuming those numbers don't radically change as more data is reported, not only did turnout decrease in 2016 compared to 2008 and 2012, it was also significantly lower than in 2004 and slightly lower than in 1992. Considering the numbers presented for the 80s, 96, and 2000, however, it looks like turnout was above average, but not significantly so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:
George Clooney 2020
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
speng31b posted:I would dispute that reasons are "much" bigger (depending on how much much is), but in general noone is doing this. People are arguing in circles because on one hand people are assuming that someone's claimed "racism is the only reason" and on another some strawman that (real or perceived) economic anxiety is the only reason. Those are both reasons, they're both "big" reasons and there are probably a lot of others. Except for literally the guy I quoted JeffersonClay posted:Clinton won on the economy and won big on foreign policy--her strongest area. Trump won big on immigration and terrorism. How did Trump do so well on immigration and terrorism? Whipping up fear of brown people. That's what caused a surge of turnout among white voters without a college degree, and that's what caused Trump to win. That seems pretty clearly to be saying "Trump won because of racism"
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What's the difference? The size of the electorate doesn't change that much in four years. Enough of one. I'll just leave this here for context: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voter-turnout-fell-especially-in-states-that-clinton-won/
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:It's almost as if you focused more on the disease (income inequality across the board, among all races) and less on the symptoms (violence, drug abuse, education, poverty, healthcare, etc.) you might actually cure society's ills rather than alienating people who feel like you're ignoring their problems in favor of someone else's. You can't actually cure racism. Full stop. It's always going to be a problem barring some sci fi future post scarcity bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Everyone keeps saying that the race was lost because people didn't come out to vote, but that's just not true. The percentage of people who could vote didn't vote, but we had more voters this year than in 2016 by like a few million. This is flawed. In 2012 there were ~126,849,000 votes cast for president, an estimated 58% of the eligible electorate. In 2016 the final is estimated to be about 128-129 million, 1-2 million more votes than in 2012. The electorate in that same window grew by nearly 10.7 million eligible voters and an estimated 57% of the total cast their votes. That means the electorate did not come out to vote. This is all to say that Clinton performed poorly in absolute terms compared to Obama in the previous two cycles and overall turnout WAS depressed. Think of this of this in money terms if it's easier. If you're earning a 5% rate of interest on something, but inflation is 6%, you are absolutely earning more money [units] however your buying power is lesser because costs are increasing faster than the value of your money. Boon fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:05 |
|
|
Carlosologist posted:Obama's legacy now relies on him effectively rebuilding the party and cutting out the fat from the DNC. I'm hopeful that the old guard will concede, and it looks like that's going to happen Except that his cabinet was Bill Clinton's people and every one an Ivy League graduate with zero union members, or people that were employees of a company, rather than CEOs and chairpeople. Replace the "old guard"? He is the old guard; cut from the same center-right, neoliberal "new democrat" cloth as the last guy. He can't be part of the solution when he's just an extension of the problem that's hosed the lower classes for the last forty years, and done nothing but pay lip service.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:40
|
|
