|
theflyingorc posted:Nate Silver reporting that Trump was +8 with non-college white voters How does this compare with Romney and GW Bush? My sneaking suspicion is that Republicans will come out to vote no matter how odious their candidate is which has been displayed time and time again. I think in the current climate there is no such thing as a "bad" Republican candidate since they will get a certain segment of the voters to crawl over broken glass to vote for them while the Democrats do not have that leniency for whatever reason.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:47 |
|
|
Vince for president because he's clearly way better at selling things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Radish posted:How does this compare with Romney and GW Bush? My sneaking suspicion is that Republicans will come out to vote no matter how odious their candidate is which has been displayed time and time again. I think in the current climate there is no such thing as a "bad" Republican candidate since they will get a certain segment of the voters to crawl over broken glass to vote for them while the Democrats do not have that leniency for whatever reason. It's a lot easier to lean into peoples' existing fears/hatreds than it is to get people to agree that you are going to fix the problems "enough", basically. If you can get 6 million people who are psyched about erasing Obama's presidency, building a wall, and/or "LOCK HER UP", then that's all you need, apparently. Meanwhile, for like most of those people, the entire cabinet being stacked with homophobes and climate deniers is probably just a bonus. They will jump through every mental hoop they can to excuse Trump for doing whatever the opposite of "draining the swamp" is, too. Flooding the swamp? Goldman Sachs guy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Radish posted:How does this compare with Romney and GW Bush? My sneaking suspicion is that Republicans will come out to vote no matter how odious their candidate is which has been displayed time and time again. I think in the current climate there is no such thing as a "bad" Republican candidate since they will get a certain segment of the voters to crawl over broken glass to vote for them while the Democrats do not have that leniency for whatever reason. I didn't word the statistic right, I'm talking about this conclusion he demonstrated: quote:In the 10 states with the largest share of white voters without college degrees, Trump beat his polling average by an average of 8 percentage points — a major polling miss. But in the 10 states with the lowest share of white voters without college degrees, Clinton beat her polls by an average of 3 points (or 4 points if you count the District of Columbia as a state). Overall, the correlation between the share of white non-college voters in a state and the amount by which Trump overperformed (or underperformed) his polls is quite high.2 He also points out that the national level polling was pretty good - Clinton's going to end up well within margin of error (like 2.5+)of where most polls had her sitting - about +4. The problem is that she didn't have those advantages in the right places - California went much more blue than it typically does, but every new California vote was a complete waste for her. Basically, if she took all her Florida money and effort and drops that in Pennsylvania/Wisconsin/Michigan - boom, she's the president. edit: Also, it's difficult to measure candidate performance from election to election by demographic, because you can only get that info from exit polls, which are notoriously unreliable. Any conclusion you draw from exit polling needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Radish posted:How does this compare with Romney and GW Bush? My sneaking suspicion is that Republicans will come out to vote no matter how odious their candidate is which has been displayed time and time again. I think in the current climate there is no such thing as a "bad" Republican candidate since they will get a certain segment of the voters to crawl over broken glass to vote for them while the Democrats do not have that leniency for whatever reason. The GOP voter lives in a world of constant fear. They are constantly bombarded with Important People telling them that their position in society, livelihoods, religion, and even their very lives are under imminent threat and the GOP are the only ones who will protect you. Is it any surprise that they are reliable voters?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:The GOP voter lives in a world of constant fear. They are constantly bombarded with Important People telling them that their position in society, livelihoods, religion, and even their very lives are under imminent threat and the GOP are the only ones who will protect you. Is it any surprise that they are reliable voters? They're also really big on "duty" as a concept.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Yeah I'm not surprised about it, it's just something that needs to be factored into future elections. Democrats constantly trying to get moderate Republicans to cross over needed to be dropped four years ago at the latest but Hillary of course kept trying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Radish posted:Yeah I'm not surprised about it, it's just something that needs to be factored into future elections. Democrats constantly trying to get moderate Republicans to cross over needed to be dropped four years ago at the latest but Hillary of course kept trying. Definitely a mistake. I found the data you're looking for: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/ White college educated voters moved 10 points towards Clinton from Obama in '12. She did about as well with that demographic as Obama did in '08, which is better than I expected. White non-college-educated voters went 14 points more towards Trump than they did for Romney. It's pretty clear that the analysis is correct - Hillary's failure to connect to non-college whites is the reason she lost. I'm not sure running to the left is going to fix that. (I still think the Democrats should move left because there's just no point to centrism anymore. Country's too polarized, thirdwayism is definitely dead).
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Yeah I don't really have the magic answer the Democrats are looking for but moving to the left and selling that seems like a better bet than the feckless centrism that everyone outside of "socially liberal fiscally conservative" upper class people hates. Anyone tied to Clinton from last election should leave since there is no way they aren't totally unelectable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Radish posted:Yeah I don't really have the magic answer the Democrats are looking for but moving to the left and selling that seems like a better bet than the feckless centrism that everyone outside of "socially liberal fiscally conservative" upper class people hates. Anyone tied to Clinton from last election should leave since there is no way they aren't totally unelectable. Well, with time, it seems very difficult for the country not to bank hard to the left with demographic trends. But that's a long, long road with a ton of corpses scattered along it. If we held the same election we just had with 2020 projected demographics I'm pretty sure Clinton would be the winner. The Democrats should, in theory, win unless Trump improves on his turnout this year* or they float another candidate as unpopular as Clinton. Which could happen - Trump's going to get credit for the next year of economic numbers (that are based on things done under Obama) and he might very well get credit for when we finish crushing ISIS, and then there's the ever-present incumbent advantage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
deadly_pudding posted:It's a lot easier to lean into peoples' existing fears/hatreds than it is to get people to agree that you are going to fix the problems "enough", basically. Clinton forgot the primary differences between her potential voters and Trump's. Conservatives vote on their fears; liberals vote on their hopes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Well, with time, it seems very difficult for the country not to bank hard to the left with demographic trends. But that's a long, long road with a ton of corpses scattered along it. The GOP will have 4 years of completely unopposed and unrestricted voter suppression come 2020. That will probably easily counter demographics trends.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:The GOP will have 4 years of completely unopposed and unrestricted voter suppression come 2020. That will probably easily counter demographics trends. Meant to include that. We'll see. There's always the chance the Supreme Court won't go for it even with whoever Trump's new justice is. Right now the worst we'll see is a reset to where we were before Scalia died. edit: Wait, it's gerrymandering that we're not sure of their stances. There's not much more teardown to do on voter supression.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Acting like the Democratic party actually advances any of it's supposed left wing ideas is pure loving madness. Christ it took Gay Republicans to make gay marriage a national thing because Democrats didn't actually want to push to hard for gay rights, in case that alienated some "moderates." Wait, what? How did this happen? I know it was the Log Cabin Republicans who were instrumental in striking down DADT, but I guess I missed this part. (Not American.) If it went down the way you say, then that's... really loving shameful, tbh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Well, with time, it seems very difficult for the country not to bank hard to the left with demographic trends. But that's a long, long road with a ton of corpses scattered along it. Or they go full Russia and start unilaterally appointing armed "voting supervisors" to deal with any "disruptive presences" at the ballots Like seriously, I have not yet found a convincing argument that the "moderate" republicans are not spineless enough to stop the Tea Party from instituting an actual, real dictatorship
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:It's pretty clear that the analysis is correct - Hillary's failure to connect to non-college whites is the reason she lost. I'm not sure running to the left is going to fix that. Really? Because a lot of leftist policies favor blue-collar workers, a lot of whom are non-college educated. With real Leftism you get things like universal healthcare (great for the working class especially), free college (again, really great for non-college educated folks, who can now get degrees), high minimum wage (again, great for large portions of working class) and more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Really? Because a lot of leftist policies favor blue-collar workers, a lot of whom are non-college educated. With real Leftism you get things like universal healthcare (great for the working class especially), free college (again, really great for non-college educated folks, who can now get degrees), high minimum wage (again, great for large portions of working class) and more. Yeah, I wouldnt count on people voting in their economic interests because of how deep their identity politics runs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
I don't think the actual policies play all that well with the voters, but the act of presenting ideas and policies plays a hell of a lot better with them than what HRC did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
I'd recommend this resource for any theorycrafting. http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls My current theory is America is dumb. code:code:JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'd recommend this resource for any theorycrafting. http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls  There are like ten others as nuts as this. edit: a whole bunch of Trump voters answered "neither of them" to questions about who was trustworthy and qualified and so on. I guess many voters just wanted change and didn't care what form it came in...but I guess that's not news. Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
America is full of neoliberals
JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:The GOP will have 4 years of completely unopposed and unrestricted voter suppression come 2020. That will probably easily counter demographics trends. Right. It barely matters whatever lessons the Democrats learn from this cycle if GOP control means democracy is undermined enough that a perfect candidate with a perfect strategy still can't get elected for reasons that aren't their fault anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
 : Christians are a bunch of loving bigots who are actively ruining our country. They are a lost cause and pandering to them just weakens Hillary's message. : You are such a bigot. Christians are great people. Stop being such a bigot, Shbobdb.  : Let's all vote Trump by massive margins!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
*historic* margins, to be precise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:
Let's keep calling out Christian bigotry where we see it, and working with progressive Christians where they exist. We're all in this together, even the sadly misled.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Die Sexmonster! posted:Let's keep calling out Christian bigotry where we see it, and working with progressive Christians where they exist. No, let us all call them useless bigots to their faces that will get them to vote team d.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:No, let us all call them useless bigots to their faces that will get them to vote team d. Let's keep chasing the middle! We can convert moderate Republicans. Motivate our base? Ew, no way! Look at the success Hillary, Kerry and Gore enjoyed running from the base.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:No, let us all call them useless bigots to their faces that will get them to vote team d. You can make fun of them for believing 2000 year old Middle Eastern fanfiction once you do that, so I'm game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Die Sexmonster! posted:You can make fun of them for believing 2000 year old Middle Eastern fanfiction once you do that, so I'm game. Good luck with GOP rule.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Good luck with GOP rule. Yes, the Clinton/Kaine strategy did wonders at preventing that from happening!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Remember there are people here who have honestly argued that to actively campaign on economic issues is to throw minorities under the bus. Hence why you have a Trump president.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
Hey, Remember the 'why do people hate Hillary Clinton' thread? That thread was a disaster, and I got this red text avatar for trying to explain why telling people to vote for Clinton because she's a woman and should be in the white house can really turn away someone who is meritocratic. I said it sounds like trying to get a video game achievement instead of voting based on policy. All the articles saying any criticism of her was sexist or that we should vote for her because we 'need' a woman in the white house was only made into ammunition against Hillary and her 'woman card' by all the right wing media sites who eagerly tore into that stuff made and used it to show off how insane her supporters were, and made Hillary and her supporters look worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
yeah but what about world of warcraft
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
is there a name for when two goons simultaneously and sarcastically adopt strawmen of each other's perceived positions? its like some weirdo hosed up internet square dance
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Yes, the Clinton/Kaine strategy did wonders at preventing that from happening! Not all Christians are fygm republicans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Not all Christians are fygm republicans. If they're white, the ones that aren't amount to a rounding error.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:If they're white, the ones that aren't amount to a rounding error. Rounding error huh? http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Rounding error huh? Wow. Hillary's constant pandering to Christians really paid off, didn't it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Good luck with GOP rule. There were atheist Founding Fathers, hell will be arisen if the GOP tries to infringe on freedom from religion. They'll poke holes in it, they always have. But I'm not actually concerned (yet). Give me President Bachman, then I'll be concerned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:47 |
|
|
Die Sexmonster! posted:There were atheist Founding Fathers, hell will be arisen if the GOP tries to infringe on freedom from religion. Yeah and think of all the poor that will be hosed. Because your pride demands that you scream at people for their belief in a book. @shbobd did I say pander? I said don't scream at them and declare them bigots. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 04:59
|
|