|
NewForumSoftware posted: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? Not more racist, more appealing to racists. Talking more about an economic plan is a good idea. But that's tricky, because Republicans who will be appealing to racism will be reminding the racist electorate that social services will be abused by welfare queens and illegals. So the message might need to be more about wages and jobs than expanding the social safety net. I would be happy to be wrong about all that. But I might not be. So the extent to which Trump's victory is attributable to a racist electorate is not pointless to discuss. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Dec 13, 2016 |
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 13:24 |
|
|
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... ...still nothing. Population growth eroded a lot of turnout percentage points. Clinton underperformed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:...still nothing. Population growth eroded a lot of turnout percentage points. Clinton underperformed. *one of the best campaigners of all time. slightly
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Not more racist, more appealing to racists. Talking more about an economic plan is a good idea. But that's tricky, because Republicans who will be appealing to racism will be reminding the racist electorate that social services will be abused by welfare queens and illegals. So the message might need to be more about wages and jobs than expanding the social safety net. So when you say we need to appeal to racists what you really mean is that we need to make the message more about wages and jobs? Isn't that what everyone is telling you in the first place? How is that appealing to racists and not appealing to the economic concerns of the working class?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:So when you say we need to appeal to racists what you really mean is that we need to make the message more about wages and jobs? Isn't that what everyone is telling you in the first place? How is that appealing to racists and not appealing to the economic concerns of the working class? What I'm saying is that jobs and wages will be less vulnerable to racist attacks than social services (like healthcare). If someone else has made this observation so far in this thread feel free to quote them and I'll apologize for wasting your time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Hi. Just a suggestion, but maybe next election can we try not gambling with the rights and dignity of Arabs/Muslims before and during the election time? That'd be swell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Literally the only thing you need is to have someone, *anyone*, to effectively blame for the loss of jobs to channel that sense of ire and indignation. Trump effectively blamed illegals. Bernie effectively blamed billionaires. Hillary... just sorta shrugged and said 'naw things are cool'. So people ended up blaming her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:So when you say we need to appeal to racists what you really mean is that we need to make the message more about wages and jobs? Isn't that what everyone is telling you in the first place? How is that appealing to racists and not appealing to the economic concerns of the working class? Because helping the poor is undesirable. And racist. Raising Taxes on the rich is racist also sexist because women earn less than men. If we handed out the living amenities the poor would be more miserable than scrabbling to live, of course. I am totally not a caricature of the gilded age.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
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 . We had someone on this thread who said that more than one of his black friends stayed home because of it, she expressed her regret, and this was before Steven Levitt had been able to conclude that Roe vs. Wade had allowed us to abort a generation of criminals, so the crime panic among white people was in full effect back then. theflyingorc posted:Out of all the things charged against Clinton, it seemed to get the least traction. Probably because a lot of the Trumpists secretly still agree with her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Hi. Just a suggestion, but maybe next election can we try not gambling with the rights and dignity of Arabs/Muslims before and during the election time? That'd be swell. Well, we'd all like to, but Midwesterners need high paying coal mining and factory jobs, and that pushes everything else to the back burner.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:*one of the best campaigners of all time. slightly Let me reiterate, she underperformed enough, especially in key states, to be defeated by Mitt Romney levels of turnout for the Republican side.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:Well, we'd all like to, but Midwesterners need high paying coal mining and factory jobs, and that pushes everything else to the back burner. Where do they mine coal in the Midwest? The coal states I can think of are West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:Well, we'd all like to, but Midwesterners need high paying coal mining and factory jobs, and that pushes everything else to the back burner. When the Democrats tried to tie whether you get rights or not to the no-fly list or drowned out anti-war protesters with "USA!," it wasn't poor midwesterners directing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Hi. Just a suggestion, but maybe next election can we try not gambling with the rights and dignity of Arabs/Muslims before and during the election time? That'd be swell. Sorry, for most Americans, there's bigger fish to fry. That's politics, that's just how it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
These are some articles from Vox about people who are covered by Obamacare who nonetheless voted for Trump. Here's the article: http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/13/13848794/kentucky-obamacare-trump Here's transcripts from the interviews in the article: http://www.vox.com/2016/12/13/13901874/obamacare-trump-voter-health-insurance-repeal I think these are pretty interesting. On the one hand, they show the pitfalls of a weak law. Many of the people interviewed complain about the cost and other issues associated with Obamacare; the flaws in coverage are naturally going to lead to people being less enthusiastic about supporting these policies. On the other hand, they show how people are going to do dumb poo poo no matter what. There is no deception here: Republicans have been loudly and openly running on repealing and dismantling Obamacare for years now. And Clinton said she'd protect/build on Obamacare. The people interviewed in the article say that they are aware of this (the repeal stuff, especially), but many of them simply chose to believe it couldn't/wouldn't happen for reasons they pulled entirely out of their rear end and that have nothing to do with being conned by anyone (reasons such as 'well i thought once it was law it couldn't be changed' or 'how are they going to repeal it there's so many people with it' or 'well trump lies a lot so i don't think he'd do it')
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
I think in general the Democrats, for whatever reason, have done a really poor job of selling themselves. They've spent eight years with their finger in the dyke stopping the GOP from their really evil goals but the result is that people seem to think that bad stuff not happening is just the state of affairs and not because one party is spending most of its time holding back the other. I don't recall really any messaging from the Democrats that they are holding everything together; they certainly can't count on the media to report on that honestly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Radish posted:I think in general the Democrats, for whatever reason, have done a really poor job of selling themselves. They've spent eight years with their finger in the dyke stopping the GOP from their really evil goals but the result is that people seem to think that bad stuff not happening is just the state of affairs and not because one party is spending most of its time holding back the other. I don't recall really any messaging from the Democrats that they are holding everything together; they certainly can't count on the media to report on that honestly. It's the truth, but who would believe them? And no doubt when Trump rips up the country, the voters will blame the Democrats, because that seems to be the way it goes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Let me reiterate, she underperformed enough, especially in key states, to be defeated by Mitt Romney levels of turnout for the Republican side. Uh, higher than Mitt Romney levels. Get up to date info.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
yoctoontologist posted: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. Going off this resource, I agree with you on Trump getting sky high returns in rural counties: http://billypenn.com/2016/11/09/how-donald-trump-won-pennsylvania-then-the-white-house/ But the fact that Clinton underperformed in Philly by 18000 votes compared to Obama in 2016 certainly didn't help. I think there was increased Repub turnout in FL and PA, but also significant lack of turnout in Obama dem counties. And overall, coupled with Trump doing worse with some heavy Romney leaning Repubs, Trump's Repub turnout in swing states wasn't especially high compared to 2012 or 2008. EDIT: And black people tend to be working class more than white people. Giving them something to aspire for or hope rather than voting against something is one lesson to be gained here. The other one is burn the Democratic party. As one writer memorably put it, they've been "beclowned." Shageletic fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
95 million people didn't vote. Who are these people? Is there a revealing demographic? Why don't they vote? How do you reach them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
the popes toes posted:95 million people didn't vote. Who are these people? Is there a revealing demographic? Why don't they vote? How do you reach them? A combination of repressive state voter laws, good old voter apathy and the fact that you have your elections on a loving workday you idiots. ... Rain, I forgot rain. What all nations with good voter participation have in common is that they make it as easy to vote as humanly possible. (or that they make it illegal but that's more of a cheat to get past deficiencies in the former) MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Uh, higher than Mitt Romney levels. Get up to date info. No, it was Mitt Romney levels of turnout. There were 231 million eligible voters this election. 27% of them voted for Trump when you divide his vote count by that number. In 2012 there were 222 million eligible voters. 27% voted for Mitt Romney when you divide his vote count by that number. So yes, Trump was literally at Mitt Romney levels.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:No, it was Mitt Romney levels of turnout. gee, I wonder why nobody does math on eligible voters, ever? maybe because that's a dumb way to look at it??? edit: We've got a glut of deaths at the top because the oldest baby boomers are finally at death's door. While they're being replaced by younger voters, younger people typically don't vote. So yes, technically the percentage of eligible voters is the same, but nobody expects any candidate to overcome the natural inclinations of the young to such an extent as to counteract the demographic shifts, nor should they.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:gee, I wonder why nobody does math on eligible voters, ever? maybe because that's a dumb way to look at it??? We won't know about the percentage of millenials of the eligible population voted until we get Census results, but we already got some clues. According to some exit polls, millenial share of the voting population dropped from 25% in 2012 to 15% in 2016. This completely had to do with who was the candidate, and what their campaign was about. You don't throw up your hands and say millenials, well, welp, what can we do.... Millenials do vote, and we've seen it happen before. Source: http://www.npr.org/2016/11/10/501613486/election-results-provide-new-insight-into-millennial-voters EDIT: quote:KHALID: So she did win you could say a majority of millennial voters as well, but there was not that same level of enthusiasm and support. And that was a problem for her. You know, both I should say Donald Trump and Mitt Romney did equally poorly with millennial voters, so I don't want to sort of dismiss the fact that he was not popular. They both got about 37 percent of voters under the age of 29. EDIT 2: Clinton was a historically unappealing candidate, and may she and anyone associated with her reduced to the dustbin of history, for the sake of progressive politics in the future. Shageletic fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
I remember the Democrats on this forum specifically saying gently caress the youth vote they can't be counted on. There's a lot of "well we don't need you then!" talk when people complain about the Democratic leadership and policies and I guess we are seeing the end result of that attitude.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:
Millennials got their candidate in 08 and 12, and didn't in 16, so they took their ball and went home. This election has made me rethink a lot of millennial hit-pieces that I once dismissed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Because helping the poor is undesirable. And racist. Raising Taxes on the rich is racist also sexist because women earn less than men. If we handed out the living amenities the poor would be more miserable than scrabbling to live, of course. I am totally not a caricature of the gilded age. There's already articles coming out about how drone bombing Yemen is feminist so you are frightfully close to reality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Young people don't vote! Therefore, we should never pretend to care about their interests because they won't vote anyway! *A candidate appears who appeals to young people, voting participation shoots up. Then goes back down again when next candidate doesn't give a gently caress again* See they don't vote! *Throws hands up in air* There's just no solution that I can see!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Radish posted:I remember the Democrats on this forum specifically saying gently caress the youth vote they can't be counted on. There's a lot of "well we don't need you then!" talk when people complain about the Democratic leadership and policies and I guess we are seeing the end result of that attitude. How do we get youth to vote? I think a big part of the problem is seen in this thread. Youth have a combination naive/cynical attitude towards voting. They think both sides are equally dishonest. They don't think their vote will make a difference. They don't like the thought of voting for a politician who might do something bad because they think this will make them complicit. They think, with the infinite wisdom of the young, that their elders just haven't figured these things out yet and they are the first generation to ever realize it. They think that because voting Democrat won't solve world hunger, global warming, racial injustice, and expensive student loans, then you might as well not bother turning up because who cares about half measures? It's not so much "Fine! We don't need you then!" as the fact that it is very hard to get the young to vote. If you spend millions on successfully convincing a demographic to support you, then they don't turn up at polling stations, aren't you the dummies? Gotta pick your battles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Millennials got their candidate in 08 and 12, and didn't in 16, so they took their ball and went home. You ran a candidate whose appeal to anybody other than "moderate republicans" (hint: not millennial dems) was basically an extended wet fart, and then have the gall to blame everyone but the candidate?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Fiction posted:You ran a candidate whose appeal to anybody other than "moderate republicans" (hint: not millennial dems) was basically an extended wet fart, and then have the gall to blame everyone but the candidate? The DNC is made up of people who watch Darksydephil videos and nod soberly before remarking "there was nothing he could do."
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Millennials got their candidate in 08 and 12, and didn't in 16, so they took their ball and went home. Obama was not "the millenial candidate". He was a candidate who appealed to many groups, with young people being just one of them. That is a good thing, and there was a positive response. Now we are back at the status quo of "no candidate on the ticket gives a gently caress" so young people stayed home. Young people don't need an exclusive candidate to vote. They just need one that cares at all. That is reasonable, and it's how every other voting block goes as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Millennials got their candidate in 08 and 12, and didn't in 16, so they took their ball and went home. Clinton was a choice picked by the establishment that effectively squashed a lot of enthusiasm in the base (mostly, of course there are exceptions). gently caress the establishment. The Dem party is now a rump party, and exactly what all the sneering pieces of the last decade painted the Republicans as. The only way forward is the equivalent of the fervor and establishment upending phenomenon that happened in their end from 2010, which in hindsight is the most significant political thing to happen in the 2010s. EDIT: I can already see who this election has radicalized me, and I expect that process to continue to me and others as the Trump era proceeds in earnest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:Young people don't need an exclusive candidate to vote. They just need one that cares at all. That is reasonable, and it's how every other voting block goes as well. Abloo, bloo, bloo. *sniff* Hillary just doesn't *care* about me like mommy does so I'm going to stay home to show her! Trump? What are you talking about? Don't be crazy, he'll never get in!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Millennials got their candidate in 08 and 12, and didn't in 16, so they took their ball and went home. In many ways Obama, not Bernie Sanders, was most responsible for progressivism becoming a thing in the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Abloo, bloo, bloo. *sniff* Hillary just doesn't *care* about me like mommy does so I'm going to stay home to show her! See, here's the problem: you're substituting dislike of the other party for giving people actual reasons to vote your candidate. That doesn't cut it for the Democratic base. e: Chomp8645 posted:lol have fun losing again in 2018 and 2020.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Abloo, bloo, bloo. *sniff* Hillary just doesn't *care* about me like mommy does so I'm going to stay home to show her! That's right, Hillary obviously didn't care about anyone or anything but her election and thus people stayed home with no good reason given to vote for her other than "Trump bad" and "read my website." Astute.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Abloo, bloo, bloo. *sniff* Hillary just doesn't *care* about me like mommy does so I'm going to stay home to show her! lol have fun losing again in 2018 and 2020. If you want a genuine piece of analysis on young people then I'd say that as a group they are less willing to vote on the "lesser evil" principle. They want to vote for something, not just against The Bad Outcome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:lol have fun losing again in 2018 and 2020. Assuming you live in the USA too, I don't think you can be completely dispassionate about this issue. Unless you are a Trump supporter, in which case, congrats. Chomp8645 posted:If you want a genuine piece of analysis on young people then I'd say that as a group they are less willing to vote on the "lesser evil" principle. They want to vote for something, not just against The Bad Outcome. Yes, and hopefully there will be a better candidate next time who can do this. However when there are only two options, Neo-Mussolini and Ms Uninspiring, GET OVER YOURSELVES!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 13:24 |
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:How do we get youth to vote? I think a big part of the problem is seen in this thread. Youth have a combination naive/cynical attitude towards voting. They think both sides are equally dishonest. They don't think their vote will make a difference. They don't like the thought of voting for a politician who might do something bad because they think this will make them complicit. They think, with the infinite wisdom of the young, that their elders just haven't figured these things out yet and they are the first generation to ever realize it. They think that because voting Democrat won't solve world hunger, global warming, racial injustice, and expensive student loans, then you might as well not bother turning up because who cares about half measures? I think it's a strange time for peoples' brains too...there's this gray area where they're transitioning between: NO SOCIO/POLITICAL/ECONOMIC THOUGHT <----------[and]---------------------------------> RESPONSIBLE SOCIO/POLITICAL/ECONOMIC THOUGHT where [and] represents their current location, as well as a sense of utter outrage/sorrow because nothing is the way it should be in the world, and if only everyone would just do as is envisioned in their arguably under-informed mind, then we'd not only all exist within a utopia, but they'd bother to participate in the process of electing officials.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:49
|
|
