|
Will Perez force the dems left? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
33 | 6.38% |
| No |
|
343 | 66.34% |
| Keith Ellison |
|
54 | 10.44% |
| Pete Buttigieg |
|
71 | 13.73% |
| Jehmu Green |
|
16 | 3.09% |
| Total: | 416 votes | ||
|
There's an interesting article out today about the election results, by Nate Cohn. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/upshot/a-2016-review-turnout-wasnt-the-driver-of-clintons-defeat.html?_r=0 It argues, after an analysis of voter rolls, that turnout was not actually why Clinton lost the election, or that it had a modest effect. Instead, her defeat can be chalked up mostly to people who had previously voted for Obama, and then voted for Trump.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:02 |
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:There's an interesting article out today about the election results, by Nate Cohn. That's what it argues, but the numbers it cites don't exactly back that up. In most of the examples they give, it just seems like they didn't learn the other lesson of 2016: margin of error matters. Also, they don't seem to take into account population change. For example, in their discussion of Schuylkill County, they note that Hillary had 7,776 fewer votes compared to Obama and point to the fact that the number of registered voters that stayed home in 2016 is unlikely to account for more than half that sum...but they make a point of ignoring population changes, even though that county's population has dropped by roughly 5,000 people since 2010.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Much like the Republicans voting for a clean repeal of Obamacare, it's something they support when they know they will never have to defend and fight for it. Wrong Issue with Republicans was they all want ACA home but can't agree on what to replace it with This is agreement on the replacement part so issue isn't the same
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Right. They disagree on what to replace it with because many are fully aware that a bad replacement means an electoral hit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:There's an interesting article out today about the election results, by Nate Cohn. This is pretty convincing stuff. Turnout wasn't down significantly, and it's not the case that Clinton failed to turn out liberals where trump succeeded in turning out deplorables. Instead, trump got a significant number of white working class voters to flip from Obama to him. The question we need to answer is why.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:This is pretty convincing stuff. Turnout wasn't down significantly, and it's not the case that Clinton failed to turn out liberals where trump succeeded in turning out deplorables. Instead, trump got a significant number of white working class voters to flip from Obama to him. The question we need to answer is why. probably because clinton's messaging on jobs (and thus peoples' impression of her policies no matter what it says on her website) was a wet fart whereas trump's was a wet fart that managed to make it sound like he cared even for a second about working people, which is something clinton never seemed to get the hang of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Is there any reason to assume the Pew data on Trump voters is wrong? Because that suggests that Trump voters are better-off within their socioeconomic classes and more motivated by "fear of falling" than by lack of jobs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:This is pretty convincing stuff. Turnout wasn't down significantly, and it's not the case that Clinton failed to turn out liberals where trump succeeded in turning out deplorables. Instead, trump got a significant number of white working class voters to flip from Obama to him. The question we need to answer is why. Yeah, this is significant. While having voted for Obama obviously doesn't inoculate one from being racist, or voting for/against a candidate for racist reasons, the fact that it's one-in-four white working class Obama supporters defecting to either Trump or a third-party candidate, suggests to me that race wasn't the fulcrum issue for most of them. This seems particularly to be the case, given that so many of these defections were centered in Rust Belt communities. e: Brainiac Five posted:Is there any reason to assume the Pew data on Trump voters is wrong? Because that suggests that Trump voters are better-off within their socioeconomic classes and more motivated by "fear of falling" than by lack of jobs. This is the Pew data from November, or something more recent? Majorian fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Because that suggests that Trump voters are better-off within their socioeconomic classes and more motivated by "fear of falling" than by lack of jobs. Haven't we known this since before the election? The bulk of his supporters were pretty well off. That's why we kept mocking "economic insecurity."
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Haven't we known this since before the election? The bulk of his supporters were pretty well off. That's why we kept mocking "economic insecurity." IIRC, the data that suggested that Trump voters, on average, weren't poor, was from the primaries, and obviously the Trump coalition evolved quite a bit between then and last November. e: It was from April/May 2016, if we're talking about the same data, so actually a little later than I thought. But still, it was fairly early, and the general election hadn't begun in earnest. Primary voters aren't always reflective of general election voters. Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, this is significant. While having voted for Obama obviously doesn't inoculate one from being racist, or voting for/against a candidate for racist reasons, the fact that it's one-in-four white working class Obama supporters defecting to either Trump or a third-party candidate, suggests to me that race wasn't the fulcrum issue for most of them. This seems particularly to be the case, given that so many of these defections were centered in Rust Belt communities. I'm asking myself what did Obama do during his 2nd term that pissed off 25% of his white working class supporters and that Trump offered a credible enough alternative? Immigration-- DACA and DAPA-- is a strong contender.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm asking myself what did Obama do during his 2nd term that pissed off 25% of his white working class supporters and that Trump offered a credible enough alternative? Not enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The question we need to answer is why. The economic policies of both parties have gutted the rust belt, that's why it's called the rust belt. Then comes along someone who says they're going to do something different. Other choice doesn't even bother to show up to say anything. Hrm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm asking myself what did Obama do during his 2nd term that pissed off 25% of his white working class supporters and that Trump offered a credible enough alternative? Immigration-- DACA and DAPA-- is a strong contender. You might be over thinking it. Slowly deteriorating conditions combined with liberal admonishment that improvement is and will always be glacial if at all possible is enough to demoralize most anyone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm asking myself what did Obama do during his 2nd term that pissed off 25% of his white working class supporters and that Trump offered a credible enough alternative? Immigration-- DACA and DAPA-- is a strong contender. Rise of BLM
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Is there any reason to assume the Pew data on Trump voters is wrong? Because that suggests that Trump voters are better-off within their socioeconomic classes and more motivated by "fear of falling" than by lack of jobs. It's possible for most Trump voters to be relatively well-off financially while a small sub-set of poorer Trump voters is also very important electorally. Most well-off Trump voters are likely people who always vote Republican regardless, so the only Trump voters we should care about are the ones who aren't consistent Republican voters and can either be convinced to vote Democrat or not vote at all (and if the article is correct it seems like many Obama -> Trump voters are poor whites or whatever). JeffersonClay posted:I'm asking myself what did Obama do during his 2nd term that pissed off 25% of his white working class supporters and that Trump offered a credible enough alternative? Immigration-- DACA and DAPA-- is a strong contender. Another (more likely IMO) explanation is that people who are doing poorly (economically or otherwise) are more likely to vote for a candidate that promises dramatic change. Obama did that in 2008 (and at the very least Romney certainly didn't do it in 2012) and Trump did that in 2016. edit: It's kind of weird that you'd automatically assume the reason was "Obama pissed them off" in the first place. I mean, that's certainly a possible reason, but there are several other plausible reasons someone might switch their vote from one party to the other. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Rise of BLM Doubtful since the dems want nearly as much to do with blm as the republicans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm asking myself what did Obama do during his 2nd term that pissed off 25% of his white working class supporters and that Trump offered a credible enough alternative? Immigration-- DACA and DAPA-- is a strong contender. But even then, a lot of Trump supporters mistakenly believe that immigration has a significant impact on their employment prospects. In response to the growing misery they see in their communities, and the government's apparent inability or unwillingness to do something about it, they buy into the magical thinking that their manufacturing jobs will come back if the government kicks out the undocumented workers and cancels NAFTA. They're wrong, and they're ignorant, but they're also just really desperate. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Rise of BLM Ehhh, for the most racist Trump supporters, it probably helped turn them out. I don't think it does enough to explain so many white working class voters defecting from Obama to Trump, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
I think there was a strong "I can't be racist, I voted for a black man" thing going on, and some people soured on that when it turns out that other black people don't think racism is over because black president.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Majorian posted:But even then, a lot of Trump supporters mistakenly believe that immigration has a significant impact on their employment prospects. In response to the growing misery they see in their communities, and the government's apparent inability or unwillingness to do something about it, they buy into the magical thinking that their manufacturing jobs will come back if the government kicks out the undocumented workers and cancels NAFTA. They're wrong, and they're ignorant, but they're also just really desperate. If these voters see their economic prospects through a racist, zero-sum lens, we're going to have big problems appealing to them with better welfare policies, or with candidates who aren't providing constant coded assurance that they will return whites to their former position of dominance. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I think there was a strong "I can't be racist, I voted for a black man" thing going on, and some people soured on that when it turns out that other black people don't think racism is over because black president. Or even "Obama's a good one, smart, calm, doesn't make me feel bad, he'll keep the others in line" and when that illusion dissolves they vote for law and order. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If these voters see their economic prospects through a racist, zero-sum lens, we're going to have big problems appealing to them with better welfare policies, or with candidates who aren't providing constant coded assurance that they will return whites to their former position of dominance. So you want to embrace racism more to gain power? Cause I want the dems to actually embrace blm
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:This is pretty convincing stuff. Turnout wasn't down significantly, and it's not the case that Clinton failed to turn out liberals where trump succeeded in turning out deplorables. Instead, trump got a significant number of white working class voters to flip from Obama to him. The question we need to answer is why.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
I mean, you want a real obvious difference between hillary and Obama? Obama promised a public option, hillary said she'd be ok with it if states offer public options on their own, which does gently caress all to help rust belters You know what rust belters wanted to talk about when bernie did a town hall? Not how much they hate black people, but how much they need healthcare Condiv fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
So much for that brief, pleasant interlude of smart leftism, but Condiv and crew are back to reclaim his thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Condiv posted:So you want to embrace racism more to gain power? Cause I want the dems to actually embrace blm
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So much for that brief, pleasant interlude of smart leftism, but Condiv and crew are back to reclaim his thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So much for that brief, pleasant interlude of smart leftism, but Condiv and crew are back to reclaim his thread. The smart thing is to drive you from the party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
I think the Democrats are doing better now and Manchin pretending he has Lieberman superpowers will eventually consume him as they consumed Joe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Condiv posted:So you want to embrace racism more to gain power? Cause I want the dems to actually embrace blm I don't see how this accusation follows. A post says "Democratic strategy should take racism into account" and the response being "Aha, you think Dems should be more racist" suggests that the only way to be nonracist as a party is to ignore racism altogether. While this is entirely in line with expressed Bernout viewpoints, it doesn't make sense at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
People who think racism is real and affects electoral outcomes are the real racists, they must be purged.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:People who think racism is real and affects electoral outcomes are the real racists, they must be purged. Says a racist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I don't see how this accusation follows. A post says "Democratic strategy should take racism into account" and the response being "Aha, you think Dems should be more racist" suggests that the only way to be nonracist as a party is to ignore racism altogether. While this is entirely in line with expressed Bernout viewpoints, it doesn't make sense at all. Again, it's a strange place to be since right after the election it was the centrists accusing the left of racism by trying to have the party focus on economics some more. And now those very same people are advocated social policies steeped in and informed by racist attitudes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:People who think racism is real and affects electoral outcomes are the real racists, they must be purged. What's your prescription? Avoid blm? Not pay as much attention to black people? Cause duh racism effects electoral outcomes, but there's literally nothing we can do about that short of embracing racism ourselves
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If these voters see their economic prospects through a racist, zero-sum lens, we're going to have big problems appealing to them with better welfare policies, or with candidates who aren't providing constant coded assurance that they will return whites to their former position of dominance. They're more self-involved than I think you realize, though. They care more about whether or not they are getting relief at all, than whether or not "those people" are also getting relief. Some of them may not like the fact that minorities disproportionately benefit from social welfare programs, but for most of them, as I've said, they're just desperate to get help for their hometowns. They wouldn't turn down what they perceived as a chance to save their homes from deindustrialized misery, just because the program would also help Latinos and black people. The reason why they turned down what Clinton was offering, was that they didn't perceive it as a chance to save their hometowns at all. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I think there was a strong "I can't be racist, I voted for a black man" thing going on, and some people soured on that when it turns out that other black people don't think racism is over because black president. I think that's true, but I also don't think they would care so much about these things if they weren't desperate for jobs, affordable health care, an end to the opioid epidemic, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Condiv posted:What's your prescription? Avoid blm? Not pay as much attention to black people? Cause duh racism effects electoral outcomes, but there's literally nothing we can do about that short of embracing racism ourselves The JCs of the world can't even conceive of such a strategy because "we trick people into voting for us" is one of the pillars of centrism. Treating people like human beings just isn't something that would occur to him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Condiv posted:What's your prescription? Avoid blm? Not pay as much attention to black people? Cause duh racism effects electoral outcomes, but there's literally nothing we can do about that short of embracing racism ourselves Who ever said that the lesson the Democrats would learn coming out of 2016 would be, we have to get more racist, was 100 percent right
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
The thing about pinning Clinton's defeat / Obama voters turning away on racism, is that it's basically a narrative of "bad people rejected the Democrats because the Democrats are just too good". You can't ignore the dynamics of race in American politics, but among many liberals there's this Myth Of The Great Southern Strategy where everything that has happened in politics in the last 30 years can be explained by racists abandoning the virtuous Democrats entirely over support of minority causes, which severely understates other changes in the Democratic Party and severely overstates how good Democrats actually are with regards to minority causes. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Who ever said that the lesson the Democrats would learn coming out of 2016 would be, we have to get more racist, was 100 percent right
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Well, we can offer a vision that eschews racism and helps people and hope that once you give people a bit of a break from the wage slavery pressure cooker, they quit turning to racism as the answer to their problems so much. You know, the right thing and the responsible thing. The not-a-cynical-rear end in a top hat thing. JC and crew don't admit such a phenomena exists. The idea that poverty and despair feeds racism, not to mention all kinds of other antisocial behavior is lost on them. That's why they think that racial and economic justice aren't intertwined.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:02 |
|
|
Condiv posted:So you want to embrace racism more to gain power? Cause I want the dems to actually embrace blm Yeah! And when did you stop beating your wife anyway? I don't agree with a lot of what JC is saying, but I at least take the time to read it before I start frothing at the mouth. Condiv posted:I mean, you want a real obvious difference between hillary and Obama? Obama promised a public option, hillary said she'd be ok with it if states offer public options on their own, which does gently caress all to help rust belters And then they turned around and voted for Donald Trump. You really think if Hillary had been 100% for single payer those people would've voted for her instead?. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 20:16
|
|
