|
Shageletic posted:Ok. There was a lack of turnout for AAs tho, but you can say that about any demo, Clinton did terribly with all of em compared to Obama. Aren't her numbers looking pretty comparable with Obama '12 at this point? Granted that's 4 years of population growth, and the voters were in the wrong places, but still... If the Democrats need Obama '08 numbers to win (incredibly charismatic candidate, economic crisis, very unpopular R incumbent) they're never going to win again.
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 19:47 |
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Remember when you used to go into the s4p subreddit and copy/pasted racist posts to the forums from 1 day old accounts due to 4chan invasions? i remember when asking "jesus christ why are you people literally important your strawmen from reddit?" was a probatable offense 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Women were affected by rust belt job losses. Maybe not as much as men. Yet all the losses in the POC vote were among men. If "jobs" were the explanation, we'd expect to see movement among female POC also. But we don't. Therefore the explanation can't be as simple as jobs, and the obvious explanation for that wide discrepancy--sexism-- must be part of the story. While I think you're actually probably right about this (I don't understand why people are denying the potential impact of sexism), your evidence is not adequate to prove what you're saying. There are many variables that could cause different voting patterns among men vs women, and it's possible for multiple to be active at once (for example it's possible some women didn't vote for Clinton who would have normally while others voted for her who wouldn't have normally, evening out to roughly the same number). But the thing about sexism is that, while it's definitely a factor (though I don't think it would have made the difference in this election), just saying "SHE LOST VOTES DUE TO SEXISM" doesn't really accomplish anything. It's only useful to focus on the elements of the election that we do have control over, like the platform or message. Complaining about many voters being racist/sexist is pointless because it won't actually change anything. It's a better idea to isolate factors that can be changed, especially since a relatively small increase in the number of Democratic voters would be enough to make a huge difference.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Ok. There was a lack of turnout for AAs tho, but you can say that about any demo, Clinton did terribly with all of em compared to Obama. Not the college educated. She grew 10 points. She's in a virtual tie with 2012 Obama overall. Clinton did better with some, worse with others. Trump did WAYYYYY better with uneducated white voters. And Clinton ran up the score in the wrong states. The problem seems to be, terrifyingly, that Trump was a better candidate than Romney.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Aren't her numbers looking pretty comparable with Obama '12 at this point? Granted that's 4 years of population growth, and the voters were in the wrong places, but still... Nope significantly worse. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/writeup/clinton_vs_trump_compared_to_obama_vs_romney-204.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/12/06/clinton_s_popular_vote_total_edges_closer_to_obama_s_in_2012.html She was down about 6 to 7 points in WI and PA, about 5 points in MI, 3 or 4 in FL, and tanked in OH. Overall turnout was down 2 percent compared to 2012. And it fell a little over that in states that Clinton won. quote:The drop in turnout was uneven. On average, turnout was unchanged in states that voted for Trump, while it fell by an average of 2.3 percentage points in states that voted for Clinton. Relatedly, turnout was higher in competitive states — most of which Trump won. In the 14 swing states — those where either the winning party in the presidential race switched from 2012 or where the margin was within 5 percentage points — an average of 65.3 percent of eligible voters cast ballots. In the other 36 states and Washington, D.C., turnout averaged just 56.3 percent.1 http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voter-turnout-fell-especially-in-states-that-clinton-won/ This was a rout.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Not the college educated. She grew 10 points. Not necessarily a better candidate, but a candidate more suited to the context of the elections they ran in. I don't believe Trump would have beaten Obama if he ran in 2012 for instance
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
rscott posted:Not necessarily a better candidate, but a candidate more suited to the context of the elections they ran in. I don't believe Trump would have beaten Obama if he ran in 2012 for instance I don't think so either, but then again, I was really confident that he wouldn't win this one, either!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voter-turnout-fell-especially-in-states-that-clinton-won/ Did you not see the link at the top of that article? quote:Stories are still circulating a week after the election that turnout fell sharply from 2012. That’s almost certainly not true. The confusion is the result of news outlets trying to pin down voter turnout figures quickly in a system that doesn’t count millions of votes until weeks after the election. We now know that overall voter turnout was up, not down. If you only look at major party votes, it was down, but much less than originally believed. And it's very different in different places: down in MI and WI, but up quite a bit in PA and FL, for example.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Not the college educated. She grew 10 points. What sources are you using? Here's the CNN exit polls 2016: http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls Clinton got 49% of the college educated, with Trump getting 44%. Obama got 47% in 2012, with Romney getting 51%: http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/ She grew significantly among college educated women true, but..... yoctoontologist posted:Did you not see the link at the top of that article? We're talking about turnout in states that Clinton won in swing states. AA share of the vote in PA dropped three percent for example, while young and minority votes depreciating compared to 2012 is why Trump won MI. He is right about the numbers fully revealing themselves later (especially with some Census results coming out next year). But if you take account of how much the electorate grew and the states and demos she needed to win, Clinton did a pretty woeful job. EDIT: And we're talking about swing states that Clinton lost as well, just to be clear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
rscott posted:Not necessarily a better candidate, but a candidate more suited to the context of the elections they ran in. I don't believe Trump would have beaten Obama if he ran in 2012 for instance I don't think Obama would have lost to Trump in 2016 either actually. Clinton's campaign was so inept, she lost the most winnable election ever. It's quite a feat actually.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:While I think you're actually probably right about this (I don't understand why people are denying the potential impact of sexism), your evidence is not adequate to prove what you're saying. There are many variables that could cause different voting patterns among men vs women, and it's possible for multiple to be active at once (for example it's possible some women didn't vote for Clinton who would have normally while others voted for her who wouldn't have normally, evening out to roughly the same number). I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, but what evidence do you think IS sufficient to prove sexism exists and affects the behavior of the electorate? And isn't the data we have insufficient to prove any sort of causal explanation for voter behavior? Where's the bulletproof data that voters rejected neoliberalism, or that they thought hillary was too close to the big banks, or didn't vote because she said the word superpredators in the 90's? When people are arguing that clinton's loss proves her ideas were bad and the party is a failure, suggesting "well, sexism played a role here" isn't a distraction or a waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:We're talking about turnout in states that Clinton won in swing states. AA share of the vote in PA dropped three percent for example, while young and minority votes depreciating compared to 2012 is why Trump won MI. Partially agreed re: MI, although Trump did have higher turnout than Romney in rural areas. In PA, Clinton got about ~60,000 fewer votes than Obama 2012, and Trump got ~300,000 more than Romney. (The population of PA has increased by about 100,000 during that time.) Obama voters failing to turn out were a significant problem, but less so than increased Republican turnout.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Do we know if migration played a role? Did Obama voters move to California?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
I'm not sure we'll know until the 2020 census, and even then the data's going to be murky. Here's a thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_growth_rate
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, but what evidence do you think IS sufficient to prove sexism exists and affects the behavior of the electorate? And isn't the data we have insufficient to prove any sort of causal explanation for voter behavior? Where's the bulletproof data that voters rejected neoliberalism, or that they thought hillary was too close to the big banks, or didn't vote because she said the word superpredators in the 90's? Yeah, that is a fair point, though I think better evidence would be stuff like studies/polls explicitly indicating sexist attitudes among the population (which obviously definitely exist). I think that "here is evidence people are sexist, ergo Clinton probably lost at least some votes due to sexism" is a more solid argument than "there's a change in the way genders voted, ergo Clinton lost votes due to sexism" (though I would argue that the latter evidence is still good enough to at least indicate that the issue should be examined further). It does concern me to see people having these knee-jerk reactions against the idea that many voters are motivated by stuff like racism/sexism. While I probably align with them more closely in terms of what I think future strategy should be, I feel like there's this strong urge to reinforce a particular narrative (that Democrats lost due to abandoning the working class) that results in people ignoring or tossing out anything that doesn't explicitly support that narrative. I think that the narrative is pretty accurate, but the fact that the Democrats have largely abandoned the working class is not mutually exclusive with other factors that could have lead to people voting for Trump or not voting for Democrats. I just think it should be focused on because it's the factor we have the most potential control over (since you're not going to persuade people to vote differently just by calling them bigots, even if they are bigots).
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
I have a relative who works for big time union here in PA and she was absolutely losing her poo poo because some union guys were straight up telling her stuff like they think women are too weak to be President. She's enough "one of the guys" with them because of how long she has been at this that they didn't even feel the need to dog whistle it. She was seriously talking about quitting when organized labor has been part of her life's work. Misogyny was absolutely one of the factors in Clinton's loss.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
I agree. I don't think the democrats are going to change any bigots' minds by calling them bigots. I'd add that the people refusing to consider the existence of racism or sexism, particularly among the white working class electorate, are actively harming efforts to craft an economic message that appeals to these voters. Expanding social services might be a lot more vulnerable to appeals to racism than increasing the minimum wage, for example. The southern strategy was about using appeals to racism to resist the expansion of the welfare state, and it worked. It still could. Perhaps it just did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
"gosh i'd really love to help you but you're just being such a bigot about everything" - a liberal
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
I want to help you but you keep falling for racist nonsense, maybe I should re-think my approach -- a reasonable person
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
I remember reading these http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-we-dont-know-how-much-sexism-is-hurting-clintons-campaign/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gender-might-matter-in-this-election-but-other-factors-probably-matter-more/back when we all thought Clinton was going to win in a landslide. It seems like a difficult variable to isolate, since there's been exactly one major female candidate in a US presidential election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'd add that the people refusing to consider the existence of racism or sexism, particularly among the white working class electorate, are actively harming efforts to craft an economic message that appeals to these voters. Is there anyone who denies the existence of sexism or racism? Who are you arguing against exactly? Nobody thinks racism or sexism aren't in play when an election comes up, but saying "wow we didn't realize people were as willing to vote for a racist" doesn't really follow to "those people are racist". You cannot hold the voter accountable for being in favor of every single facet of their choice come lesser of two evils day. Hillary couldn't change her gender so acting like it was a problem this election is kind of missing the point, which is that the things she could have done she didn't do. So of course people are going to focus on those things. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Obama gave a great speech on race in America after the Jeremiah Wright thing. Obviously it didn't get open racists to stop being racists, but it did appeal to people who aren't open racists and believe Obama might be a President who could work to heal some of the divides. It gave people an image of Obama that was very different from Wright's more rage filled (but not entirely wrong) approach on the topic. He turned the attacks into a way to appeal to the reachable people while still not giving ground to the unapproachable sort of racists. When I try and think of how Clinton tried to judo flip on the misogyny topic I think of stuff like the woman cards or saying she can't be an insider because she is a woman. She had the right idea. Can't change that she's a woman and there is a lot of misogyny out there, so turn it into a political strength where you can. Problem is...that kind of stuff didn't have the broad appeal of Obama giving a kickass speech. The strategy and execution just was not there with the Clinton campaign even when they had the right general ideas. You didn't have to be an open misogynist to find woman cards and the idea that she isn't an insider kind of ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Is there anyone who denies the existence of sexism or racism? Who are you arguing against exactly? Do you want me to quote all the people who called me a Hillary apologist when pointing out racism and sexism exist and affected the election? If people voted for Trump because appeals to racism work, that's important to recognize when crafting our message. We'd want to craft a message that was least vulnerable to appeals to racism. That might mean focusing less on expanding social services, and more on things like minimum wage and the EITC, because social services are easier to demagogue as "handouts to lazy brown people". It might also mean hawkish or isolationist foreign policy is a lot more popular than a dovish alternative, or that protecting domestic workers is important when negotiating trade deals but foreign workers don't matter. Winning the votes of a racist electorate is not going to be fun or even necessarily possible without compromising some of our principles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Do you want me to quote all the people who called me a Hillary apologist when pointing out racism and sexism exist and affected the election? "I'm not a hillary apologist." \ 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
There were a lot of cool, inspiring, historic pictures of Obama taken during his campaign trails: him addressing stadiums full of excited people, lights shining strategically to make him look awe-inspiring, tears and sweat streaming down his face as he gave impassioned speeches. I cannot recall seeing a single picture of Hillary that was half as good as any of those.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Calaveron posted:There were a lot of cool, inspiring, historic pictures of Obama taken during his campaign trails: him addressing stadiums full of excited people, lights shining strategically to make him look awe-inspiring, tears and sweat streaming down his face as he gave impassioned speeches. passing out and being thrown in a van like a sack of potatoes i think really resonated with voters in a similar way
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Do you want me to quote all the people who called me a Hillary apologist when pointing out racism and sexism exist and affected the election? Sure, because I don't think anyone's doing that. They are calling you a Hillary apologist because you're making bizarre theories up that are primarily based on race or gender which we can do literally nothing about. You're talking about changing messaging but really if we're going to talk about things Hillary could have controlled, complaining that the electorate is more sexist and racist than you thought (hint: it always was this way and both parties know it) is irrelevant to the point other people are trying to make, which is that many of the things Hillary COULD have done she DIDN'T. Now, you seem hesitant to call that a "bad candidate", if you could just admit that maybe not running for President with an active FBI investigation and the sort of baggage (superpredators) she had was not really the most strategic of moves. Most/many people viewed this election as a "landslide" waiting to happen, but it never did. Nobody thinks Trump won the election because he ran a good campaign (by almost any measure he didn't), they think he won because Hillary ran a bad campaign (ie the thing she could have chosen to not do). And the backdoor insinuation that because the electorate is misogynist we shouldn't run women kind of falls flat on its face when you look at how other elections end up when it comes to a gender showdown. A woman could have won this election. Hillary could not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Chris Hayes did a town hall on MSNBC with Bernie Sanders and a bunch of Trump voters from WI. They were just as big loving morons as I expected.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Sure, because I don't think anyone's doing that. They are calling you a Hillary apologist because you're making bizarre theories up that are primarily based on race or gender which we can do literally nothing about. Bizarre theories like appeals to racism might have worked and sexism affected both white and non-white men? mcmagic posted:Chris Hayes did a town hall on MSNBC with Bernie Sanders and a bunch of Trump voters from WI. They were just as big loving morons as I expected. WE CANT CHANGE THAT STOP DISTRACTING FROM HILLARY'S TERRIBLENESS JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
I blame misogynist rap lyrics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:I blame misogynist rap lyrics. . . . b-but Hamilton
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Bizarre theories like appeals to racism might have worked Yes, what does this even mean? Appealing to racism?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
I blame the capitalist ruling class who forced misogynistic ideology on men of color as a tool to divide their class consciousness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Yes, what does this even mean? Appealing to racism? Build a wall, deport em all, chinese are cheating us, law and order. Campaigning for the racist vote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Build a wall, deport em all, chinese are cheating us, law and order. Campaigning for the racist vote. And you think this is actually a reasonable course for Democrats as opposed to just appealing to the working class? What makes you so sure the Democrats need to be more racist to win an election?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:(superpredators) I wonder how much this issue actually affected black voters. I suspect many or most who voted Trump did so for the same reasons white votersin the rust bel did .
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I wonder how much this issue actually affected black voters. I suspect many or most who voted Trump did so for the same reasons white votersin the rust bel did . Out of all the things charged against Clinton, it seemed to get the least traction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Chris Hayes did a town hall on MSNBC with Bernie Sanders and a bunch of Trump voters from WI. They were just as big loving morons as I expected. Yeah what a bunch of idiots complaining about jobs being lost and feeling like politicians don't care about them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I wonder how much this issue actually affected black voters. I suspect many or most who voted Trump did so for the same reasons white votersin the rust bel did . Well, I don't think "superpredators" had any sway, but I think the policy decisions pursued by her husband were certainly projected on to her. I don't think that's completely invalid, but I think it's safe to say that you're going to lose some votes going from Obama, a guy who is black and had a relatively clean record, especially when it came to race. Hillary's past is much more checkered although I doubt addressing it publicly would have helped her much. That's kind of the problem when you want to follow in the footsteps of a guy who ran on "change" and you have a history of establishment politics. She was never going to get the voters Obama had and it was pretty clear from the get-go she was going to have these sorts of issues. Whether it's sexism, racism, economics, etc, she had mixed bag of past actions and failing to come out strong with a new platform was a big misstep in my eyes. I get that she had a platform and it wasn't that bad, but for all the reasons previously mentioned(primarily that she was counting on DJT shooting himself in the foot), nobody heard it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 19:47 |
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Out of all the things charged against Clinton, it seemed to get the least traction. Mainly because black voters aren't idiots and are well aware that this was only brought up to concern troll about how democrats are the real racists. The crime bill was a mistake, but the situations in the 90s were very rough and they got credit in the community for at least trying, and then owning up to the mistake.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:34
|
|
